Paper No. ____
`
`
` Filed: November 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. AND
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`_________________
`
`REVISED PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`CONTENTS
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION ........................................... 5
`
`III. TRADESTATION’S PETITION FAILS TO SHOW THAT IT IS
`MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE ’556
`PATENT ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER § 101 ...............................................10
`
`A.
`
`The ’556 Patent Claims Satisfy Part One of the Alice Test ................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’556 Patent Claims Are Not “Directed to”
`TradeStation’s Alleged Abstract Idea .......................................11
`
`The ’556 Patent Claims Are Directed to an Improvement
`in Computer Technology—a Patent-Eligible GUI ...................20
`
`B.
`
`The ’556 Claims Recite an Inventive Concept, Satisfying Part
`Two of the Alice Test ..........................................................................24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`TradeStation’s Petition Is Fundamentally Flawed
`Because It Provides No Evidence Disproving the PTO’s
`Original Conclusion that the Claims Contain an Inventive
`Concept .....................................................................................25
`
`TradeStation’s Remaining Arguments Fail to Address the
`Inventive Concept in the Claims ...............................................29
`
`The Inventive Concept in the ’556 Patent Claims Is
`“Necessarily Rooted in Computer Technology” ......................31
`
`C.
`
`Claims 12-22 Are Not Outside the Four Permissible Statutory
`Classes of Patentable Subject Matter ..................................................34
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 322(a)(2) BECAUSE TRADESTATION FAILS TO SHOW IBG IS
`NOT AN RPI AFTER ADMITTING COORDINATED EFFORTS ...........37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`It Is TradeStation’s Burden to Show IGB Is Not an RPI and
`Failing to Meet Its Burden Requires Denial of Institution..................37
`
`The Admitted Coordination in Preparing Petitions Against TT’s
`Patents Establishes IBG’s RPI Status .................................................38
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT
`REPRESENTS A MISUSE OF THE CBM REVIEW PROCESS ...............40
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Has the Power to Exercise Its Discretion and Deny
`This Petition ........................................................................................40
`
`TradeStation’s Petition Misuses CBM Review Because It
`Purposefully Delayed Its Repetition of Arguments ............................42
`
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE THE
`’556 PATENT IS NOT A CBM PATENT....................................................46
`
`A. GUI Design Is a Technology ...............................................................47
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Statutory Definition of CBM Requires More Than a
`Recitation of Financial Activity or a Financial Purpose .....................48
`
`Even If the ’556 Patent Were a CBM, It Falls Within the
`Technological Invention Exception Because Novel and
`Nonobvious Improvements to GUIs Necessarily Fall Within the
`Technological Invention Exception ....................................................52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Novel and Nonobvious Improvements to GUIs
`Necessarily Claim Novel and Nonobvious Technology ...........53
`
`Novel and Nonobvious Improvements to GUIs
`Necessarily Claim Technological Solutions to
`Technological Problems ............................................................57
`
`VII. THE THRESHOLD JURISDICTIONAL CBM ISSUE IMPACTS
`MANY PATENTS—WARRANTING AN EXPANDED PANEL ..............58
`
`A.
`
`The jurisdictional dispute relates to all GUI improvement
`patents ..................................................................................................58
`
`B.
`
`The CBM issue warrants consideration by an expanded panel ..........60
`
`VIII. ALL PETITIONS ON PATENTS IN THE RELATED
`LITIGATIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED.................................................61
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................62
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Achates Reference Publ'g, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 60
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...................................................................................... 13, 19
`
`Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC,
`659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 30
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 33
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................passim
`
`In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 34, 35. 36
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`98 S. Ct. 2522 (1978) .................................................................................... 21, 26
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 35
`
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 33
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 3
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 53, 60
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 37, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ....................................................................................... 28, 40, 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ....................................................................................... 40, 41, 42
`
`AIA Sec. 18 .................................................................................................. 49, 51, 52
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ............................................................................................. 40, 42
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................... 52
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 37
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5428 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ................................................ 50, 51
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................... 38
`
`Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp. v. Gowan Co.,
`IPR2015-01016, Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2015) .......................................... 37, 38
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Appistry, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00480, Paper 18 (PTAB July 13, 2015) .............................................. 37
`
`Google Inc. v. Network-1 Techs., Inc.,
`CBM2015-00113, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) ................................. 11, 15, 33
`
`In re Guan, Control No. 95/001,045, Decision Vacating Filing Date,
`2008 WL 10682851, at *8 (PTO. May 26, 2008) ............................................... 38
`
`1 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 3.02[4][a] (3d
`ed. 2015) ............................................................................................................. 38
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00018, Institution Decision, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 24,
`2013) ................................................................................................................... 36
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation Securities, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“TradeStation”) present CBM and 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments that contain a
`
`fundamental flaw—the ’556 claims are not directed to taking a known process and
`
`performing that process using a generic computer, a generic display/graphical user
`
`interface, or the Internet. In particular, the ’556 claims are not directed to a method
`
`of displaying financial information, and merely performing that method using a
`
`generic computer, a generic display/graphical user interface, or the Internet. It is
`
`important to clarify this because TradeStation formulates its arguments based on
`
`the incorrect and conclusory assumption that the various elements of the body of
`
`the claims are merely directed to a generic computer/display (i.e., they are directed
`
`to “routine and conventional” computer elements).
`
`TT agrees that a claim merely directed to using a generic computer to
`
`display market information on a generic graphical user interface (“GUI”) or
`
`display would be a CBM and have § 101 issues. But that is not the case here, and
`
`TradeStation’s assumption ignores the actual claim limitations and reflects a
`
`misunderstanding of the law. Here, the claims are directed to a combination of
`
`specific features and functions of a GUI tool that result in the computer functioning
`
`in a different way and the user interfacing with the computer in a different way.
`
`The new GUI tool changes the way the computer functions, resulting in an
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`improvement to the function of the computer-user interface such that the
`
`interface/computer can be used in new ways. In other words, the new GUI tool
`
`transforms a generic computer with generic functionality to a new device that
`
`functions differently. The claim elements here that are directed to features and
`
`functionality of a GUI tool are not reciting the purported abstract idea, but are
`
`specifying specific attributes of the GUI (e.g., specifying how a particular GUI
`
`works). To implement such a claimed GUI, specialized software is needed to run
`
`on a computer. Claims directed to such particular GUI features and functionality—
`
`as opposed to claims that merely recite standard computing equipment or that
`
`merely require that something be displayed on a generic “GUI” or “display” with
`
`no further detail—do not remotely pose a § 101 problem and are not CBMs.
`
`Controlling case law makes this critical distinction—finding on the one hand
`
`that claim elements indisputably only reciting standard components of a generic
`
`computer (e.g., memory, a display/GUI/interface generally, or a CPU) do not save
`
`an otherwise abstract claim and, on the other hand, that claims directed to features
`
`which improve the functioning of a computer (e.g., improving the functioning of
`
`memory, a display/GUI/interface, or a CPU) are eligible under § 101 (even claims
`
`directed to such slight improvements as making one web page have the same “look
`
`and feel” as another web page). For example, the Federal Circuit distinguished the
`
`claims in DDR and in Ultramercial as follows:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`The ’399 patent's claims are different enough in
`substance from those in Ultramercial because they do not
`broadly and generically claim “use of the Internet” to
`perform an abstract business practice (with insignificant
`added activity). Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the
`claims at issue here specify how interactions with the
`Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a
`result that overrides the routine and conventional
`sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a
`hyperlink. Instead of the computer network operating in
`its normal, expected manner by sending the website
`visitor to the third-party website that appears to be
`connected with the clicked advertisement, the claimed
`system generates and directs the visitor to the above-
`described hybrid web page that presents product
`information from the third-party and visual ‘look and
`feel’ elements from the host website. When the
`limitations of the ’399 patent's asserted claims are taken
`together as an ordered combination, the claims recite an
`invention that is not merely the routine or conventional
`use of the Internet.
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(distinguishing Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`Just like in DDR, the claims here do not generically claim a computer
`
`interface performing a business process. Instead, the particular claimed GUI
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`features and functionality specify how interactions with the computer are
`
`manipulated to yield a desired result that is different than the routine and
`
`conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer or the
`
`computer’s interface. The claimed invention requires specialized software to be run
`
`on a conventional computer that changes the functioning of the conventional
`
`computer. The question of whether such a claimed combination of elements that
`
`improve the functioning of a computer are ultimately patentable is properly dealt
`
`with under a §§ 102/103 analysis. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an
`
`improvement to the computer technology—making them not only ineligible for
`
`CBM review, but also patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. To be
`
`clear, when the phrase “claims are directed to particular features and functionality
`
`of a GUI tool” is used herein, TT is referring to the specific claimed features that
`
`go beyond any component of a generic computer or display.
`
`In view of the petition’s fundamental flaw (as well as other flaws explained
`
`below), the Board should deny TradeStation’s petition because it cannot meet its
`
`burden to show more likely than not that any claim is unpatentable on the proposed
`
`§ 101 grounds or that it is a CBM. As explained below: (1) the claims are not
`
`directed to TradeStation’s purported abstract idea that ignores close to 100% of the
`
`claims; (2) the claims recite an inventive concept of new GUI features and
`
`functionality improving upon prior interface technology already judged by the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`district court as statutory; and (3) claims 12-22 do not claim a signal per se.
`
`Further, TradeStation’s petition should be denied institution because it uses CBM
`
`review as a litigation tactic rather than a litigation alternative. The joint defense
`
`group has coordinated filings to cause delay, avoid estoppel, and get multiple
`
`chances to respond to TT’s arguments. Moreover, because the CBM issue is (i) an
`
`important threshold issue going to the Board’s underlying authority and (ii) a novel
`
`dispute that pervades multiple proceedings, TT suggests that expanded panel
`
`review would be appropriate.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
`The claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 (“the ’556 patent”) relate to the
`
`features and functionality of an order entry tool embodied in a GUI. The claimed
`
`GUI tool improves how a user interfaces with the computer by improving prior
`
`GUIs that may be used to facilitate the presentation of information associated with
`
`a tradeable object, such as a stock, bond, or future. For example, the specification
`
`explains that the invention builds on and is an improvement to trading screens like
`
`the trading screen disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 3:12-16), which a district court recently determined is patent eligible
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ex. 2001). In particular, the claims recite generating and
`
`displaying a plurality of values along a value axis, displaying an indicator
`
`representing a particular type of price in a first location corresponding to a value
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`along the value axis, and moving the indicator relative to the value axis to a second
`
`location corresponding to a different value along the value axis based on the
`
`receipt of an update from the electronic exchange. The values along the value axis
`
`represent profit/loss (“P&L”) values that would be realized if the trader’s position
`
`(long or short) in the tradeable object were to be closed at a corresponding price for
`
`the tradeable object. The indicator, displayed at a location along the value axis
`
`representing a particular price, may represent the best bid, best ask, or last traded
`
`price for the tradeable object. As the GUI tool receives market information updates
`
`for the tradeable object (e.g., updates to the best bid, best ask, or last traded price)
`
`from an electronic exchange, the GUI tool moves the indicator relative to the value
`
`axis. No claim of the ’556 patent is merely directed to calculating a P&L value or
`
`simply displaying financial information received from exchange data feeds to
`
`facilitate trading on a generic display. Rather, the claims require a specialized GUI
`
`that does not exist on generic computers or displays.
`
`Figure 7 from the ’556 patent illustrates an example of displaying a
`
`generated value axis for “net change” from the previous day’s settlement price
`
`(which was “125”), showing it in relation to a price axis present in prior order
`
`entry interfaces. The price axis and the generated value axis can be seen in the
`
`annotated Figure 7 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l5—00172
`
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`
`
`Generated Value
`
`Axis (For “Net
`
`Change”)
`
`
`
`Price Axis (Not Recited
`in Independent Claims)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'0C-3$
`
`_A .3 K3I
`
`c '0,1E9.3.’02
`
`I+
`
`caI."o”EEl1”
`\1VN'9‘J—i(D
`IEEEEEHEEeH++4-—§i-3OO--5O)b
`IN)Is)9R)Q)(I!O’)‘de“H3999
`+-F++-6-i-3i£-§ooc—s-0-Non---
`++++888"ono2
`++(O60O10 (0N
`
`
`
`ujjjijj-2“I-K
`
`
`a[———
`
`
`
`Ex- 1001 at Fig. 7 (annotated)
`
`The claims of the ’556 patent are directed to a particular embodiment of the
`
`GUI discussed above described beginning at column 13, line 50, of the
`
`specification, where the values on the value axis represent P&L_ The independent
`
`claims of the ’556 patent do not require display of the prices, although each of the
`
`values on the value axis still corresponds to a price. Figure 9 of the ’556 patent
`
`shows an exemplary interface without the price display. A modified version of
`
`Figure 9, shown below, demonstrates an embodiment of the independent claims,
`
`showing the generated value axis with P&L values. In the example beginning at
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`column 13, line 50, of the specification, the user is assumed to have bought one lot
`
`of a particular tradeable object at a price of “230.” Thus, the P&L shown on the
`
`generated value axis at the position corresponding to a price of 230 shows a “0.”
`
`The “+1” is associated with a price of “231” and “-1” is associated with a price of
`
`“229,” and so on. These P&L values represent the profit acquired if one lot of the
`
`particular tradeable object was sold at the associated price. Other ways to provide
`
`the P&L may be used as well.
`
`In this example, the GUI tool also provides, in relation to the value axis, an
`
`indicator of the current best bid (indicated by the quantity “15” located two
`
`columns to the left of the value axis and associated with the price of “230”) and an
`
`indicator of the current best offer (indicated by the quantity “10” located one
`
`column to the left of the value axis and associated with the price of “232”). The
`
`GUI tool shows an indicator of the last traded price in relation to the value axis as
`
`well (indicated by the last traded quantity “5” located one column to the right of
`
`the value axis and associated with the price of “230”). The GUI claimed in the
`
`independent claims only requires displaying one of these indicators. See Ex. 1001
`
`at 15:41-48. And as mentioned above, the GUI tool is configured to move these
`
`indicators, relative to the value axis, depending on updated market information
`
`received from the electronic exchange. Id. at 15:49-54.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015—00172
`
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`
`
`Generated Value Axis
`
`Showing P&L
`
`E EIEJ Q
`IVIV \I(D
`
`r\)l\JN0003O)031}O’)
`
`Corresponding
`Prices (Not
`Displayed in
`GUI)
`
`31
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9 (modified)
`
`In the Notice of Allowance, the PTO found novelty and nonobviousness in
`
`the claimed GUI over “the prior art of record [that] teaches a method for displaying
`
`market information on a graphical user interface.” Ex. 1002 at 16. Thus, the
`
`inventive features are the claimed combination of specialized GUI features and
`
`functionality, not merely displaying financial information on a generic screen. In
`
`particular, the inventive features include displaying a value axis with a plurality of
`
`values representing profit or loss based on a position taken by the user, displaying
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`an indicator representing the best bid, best ask, or last traded price at a first
`
`location corresponding to a first value along the value axis and moving the
`
`indicator to a second location along the value axis in response to an update
`
`received from the exchange reflecting a new best bid, best ask, or last traded price.
`
`Id.
`
`Accordingly, the claims at issue here are not merely directed to taking an
`
`economic practice (such as displaying market information) and performing that
`
`practice using a generic computer, a generic display/GUI, or the Internet, but
`
`instead claim specific “features and functionality of a GUI tool.”1
`
`III. TRADESTATION’S PETITION FAILS TO SHOW THAT IT IS
`MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE ’556
`PATENT ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER § 101
`
`TradeStation’s Petition fails to meet its burden to show that the claims
`
`satisfy either part of the two-part Alice test because it has two fundamental flaws:
`
`(1) the alleged abstract idea ignores what is actually claimed—an improvement to
`
`technology; and (2) the Petition does not refute the recited inventive concept in the
`
`claims. TradeStation’s allegation that the computer-readable medium claims
`
`
`1 TT uses the phrase "features and functionality of a GUI tool" as shorthand for the
`
`nongeneric, nonroutine, and nonconventional GUI features in the ’556 patent
`
`claims, discussed above in Section II.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`(12-22) claim non-transitory media also fails because the claimed “recording” in
`
`claims 12-22 precludes transitory media.
`
`A. The ’556 Patent Claims Satisfy Part One of the Alice Test
`The ’556 Patent Claims Are Not “Directed to”
`1.
`TradeStation’s Alleged Abstract Idea
`The two-part Alice test requires that a court “first determine whether the
`
`claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice Corp. v. CLS
`
`Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (emphasis added); see also Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012).
`
`TradeStation alleges that the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea of
`
`“providing a trader with financial information to facilitate market trades.” Pet. 27.
`
`However, the claims cannot be properly summarized as merely directed to that
`
`alleged abstract idea. See Google Inc. v. Network-1 Techs., Inc., CBM2015-00113,
`
`Paper 7, at 13 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) (denying institution on § 101 grounds for
`
`claims where Petitioner’s alleged abstract idea omitted core features). Rather, the
`
`claims are directed to specific features and functionality of a GUI tool. See supra
`
`Section II. As such, the claims do not merely recite the “idea of itself.” See Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`
`TradeStation’s allegation that the ’556 patent claims are directed to “providing a
`
`trader with financial information to facilitate market trades” focuses only on the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`preamble of claim 1 and ignores close to 100% of the body where specific GUI
`
`features and functionality are recited.
`
`The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that “directed to” has a
`
`narrow interpretation: a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea when it recites the
`
`“idea of itself.” As explained in Alice, “an invention is not rendered ineligible for
`
`patent simply because it involves an abstract concept” because “all inventions . . .
`
`embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas.” Id. at 2354 (first citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187
`
`(1981); and then quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293). Rather, the Court has
`
`emphasized that the motivating concern is one of preemption. In clarifying the
`
`Alice test, the Court stated that “we must distinguish between patents that claim the
`
`‘buildin[g] block[s]’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building
`
`blocks into something more . . . , thereby ‘transform[ing]’ them into a patent-
`
`eligible invention.” Id. (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted).
`
`According to the Court, the former “‘risk disproportionately tying up the use of the
`
`underlying’ ideas, and are therefore ineligible,” while the latter “pose no
`
`comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible.” Id. at 2354-55
`
`(internal citation omitted).
`
`Against this backdrop, the question of whether a claim is “directed to” an
`
`abstract idea is therefore whether the claim on its face attempts to tie up the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`abstract idea (and thereby in practical effect preempts the abstract idea). A claim is
`
`“directed to” an abstract idea if (1) the claim only recites an abstract idea (e.g.,
`
`Bilski), or (2) if the claim recites an abstract idea with the mere addition of
`
`instructing that the abstract idea be practiced on a generic computer (e.g., Alice). In
`
`Alice, for example, the petitioner “acknowledge[d] that its claims describe
`
`intermediated settlement.” Id. at 2356. The Court found that this was an abstract
`
`idea and then found the claims were “directed to” this abstract idea because the
`
`claims do not “do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
`
`abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.” Id. at 2359.
`
`TradeStation’s allegation that the ’556 patent claims are directed to
`
`“providing a trader with financial information to facilitate market trades” (Pet. 27)
`
`ignores that the claims on their face are directed to specific GUI features.
`
`TradeStation, by focusing only on some words in the preamble (which are not even
`
`limitations), ignores the claim language requiring specific GUI features and
`
`functionality. Claim elements directed to specific GUI features and functionality,
`
`as opposed to claim elements that merely require a generic display, do not
`
`abstractly “provid[e] a trader with financial information” or simply “do[] so on a
`
`graphical user interface,” as TradeStation alleges. Pet. 27-28.
`
`TradeStation’s assertion, at best, only addresses the highlighted portions of
`
`claim 1 below and completely ignores the limitations that are struck out:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`1. A method for displaying market information on a
`graphical user interface, the method comprising:
`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 computing 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 computing 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
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`incurred by the user if the long or short position is closed
`at the 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.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 15:21-54 (highlighting and strikethrough added).
`
`Claim 1 presents no § 101 issue because none of the claim steps in the body
`
`
`
`of claim 1, alone or in combination, can be properly summarized as “providing a
`
`trader with financial information to facilitate market trades” or limiting doing so on
`
`any “graphical user interface.” See Pet. 27-28; see Google Inc. v. Network-1
`
`Techs., Inc., CBM2015-00113, Paper 7, at 13 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015). For example,
`
`the claimed feature of “identifying by the computing device a long or short
`
`position . . .” is not necessary to “provid[e] a trader with financial information to
`
`facilitate market trades.” Likewise, the claimed feature of “computing by the
`
`computing device a plurality of values . . . , wherein each of the plurality of values
`
`represents a profit or loss . . .” is not necessary to perform the purported abstract
`
`idea. Similarly, the claimed features of “displaying . . . the plurality of values along
`
`a value axis,” “displaying . . . a first indicator at a first location corresponding to a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`first value along the value axis,” and “moving the first indicator relative to the
`
`value axis to a second location . . . along the value axis responsive to receipt of an
`
`update . . .” are not necessary (alone or in combination) to perform the purported
`
`abstract idea. As just an example, the last three steps (the “displaying” and
`
`“moving” steps) are directed to specific features and functionality of a particular
`
`GUI tool—not to the mere generic display of information on a computer.
`
`While TradeStation’s phantom claim may be abstract, the ignored portions
`
`of the claim—nearly all of the claim recitations—make clear that the claim on its
`
`face is directed to specific features and functionality of a GUI tool, not tying up the
`
`purported abstract idea of “providing a trader with financial information to
`
`facilitate market trades.” For example, the claimed GUI functions in a specific
`
`way: creating a value axis with a plurality of values representing profit or loss
`
`based on a position taken by the trader, displaying an indicator representing a type
`
`of price (e.g., best bid price) at a first location corresponding to a value along the
`
`value axis, and moving the indicator to a second location corresponding to a value
`
`along the value ax