UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.,
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC., and IBFX, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`CBM2015-00161 (U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2)1
`CBM2015-00172 (U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 B1) 2
`CBM2015-00179 (U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DAN R. OLSEN, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 125
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2174
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00179
`
`

`
`Case CBMZOIS-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`1. Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I, Dan R. Olsen Jr., Ph.D., am a resident of Orem, Utah and have more
`
`than 35 years of experience in computer science and human-computer interaction
`
`(HCI). I hold a doctorate in Computing and Information from the University of
`
`Pennsylvania. For 3 1/2 years I was an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at
`
`Arizona State University. I then served for 30 years on the faculty of Brigham
`
`Young University retiring as a full professor in 2015. During that time at BYU, I
`
`also served as the chair of the Department of Computer Science. I took leave from
`
`BYU in 1996 to become the founding director of the Human Computer Interaction
`
`Institute in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. I
`
`returned to BYU in 1998. I am currently the CEO of a software startup in
`
`educational technology (SparxTeq, Inc).
`
`2.
`
`During the course of my academic career, I authored over 70 papers in
`
`the field of computer science. The topics on which I have published papers are:
`
`0
`
`User Interface Management Systems
`
`Syntactic representations of user interfaces
`
`Multi—user interaction across networks
`
`Induction of interaction behavior from pictures
`
`Novel interaction techniques using speech and laser pointers
`
`Interactive machine learning
`
`Page 2 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015—0016l
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`Interactive robotics
`
`Interactive television
`
`3.
`
`I currently hold 4 patents in human-computer interaction. I have
`
`authored 3 textbooks on the techniques of software design for human-computer
`
`interaction.
`
`4.
`
`I have had extensive involvement in professional societies, such as the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the premiere society in computing.
`
`I have served in many offices of ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer
`
`Human Interaction (SIGCHI) and currently serve as its treasurer. I have been
`
`conference chair of CHI, which is the premier conference in Computer Human
`
`Interaction. I was the founding editor of ACM’s Transactions on Computer Human
`
`Interaction. I was a co-founder and active leader for the conference on User
`
`Interface Software and Technology (UIST) for the past 29 years. I have also served
`
`at the governor’s request on the Utah Science, Technology and Research (USTAR)
`
`board, which oversees and funds state economic development efforts in
`
`technology.
`
`5.
`
`I twice received best paper awards in intelligent user interfaces. In
`
`2004, I was appointed to the CHI Academy for international excellence in
`
`Computer Human Interaction research. In 2007, I was recognized as one of ACM’s
`
`Page 3 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`Fellows for research in computer science and in 2012 received the CHI Lifetime
`
`Research Award, which is the highest award in Computer Human Interaction.
`
`II. Graphical User Interfaces and the ‘304 Patent
`
`6.
`
`Attorneys for the Patent Holder have explained to me that U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,766,304 (“the ‘304 patent”) has been challenged as a Covered Business
`
`Method (CBM) patent. I have been asked to review the nature of the invention in
`
`the ‘304 patent. As explained below, it is my opinion that the ‘304 patent claims a
`
`technological invention because the claimed invention provides a technical
`
`improvement to prior graphical user interfaces.
`
`III. Historical context
`
`7.
`
`In discussing how graphical user interfaces are a technology with
`
`specific technical problems, I would first like to refer to two very old patents
`
`involving earlier mechanical technologies. I will use these two patents to illustrate
`
`two key pieces of technical knowledge that are used widely in graphical user
`
`interface (GUI) technology.
`
`Page 4 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`sirllfiffl Iomrrna run ratings
`""5 3‘|'‘--N. 15_35
`
`2 shah-mast.
`
`1
`
`Figure 1 — Speedometer in the Steering Wheel.
`
`IV.
`
`Simplification of perception — US patent 1,692,601
`
`8.
`
`In 1928, US. patent 1,692,601 was issued for an automobile
`
`speedometer that was mounted in the center of the steering wheel. This patent
`
`claims the ability to perceive an automobile’s speed. It was not for the sensor for
`
`measuring speed (which was well known at the time). It was not for the concept of
`
`displaying speed in a meter (which was also well known). The key claim was as
`
`follows:
`
`first, to provide a steering control means -for vehicles on which is
`mounted a speedometer whereby the speed of the vehicle may be
`readily determined by merely dropping the vision slightly to the
`middle portion of the steering wheel which is substantially in line with
`the line of Vision of the driver and as close to the eyes of the driver as
`possible, thus determining the speed of the vehicle with least danger
`to the driver and other occupants . ..
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`9.
`
`This patent’s key contribution was that it placed the speedometer in
`
`the center of the steering wheel where it was easier for the driver to perceive. This
`
`was not awarded for the esthetics or appearance of that speedometer placement. It
`
`was the arrangement of the components of the technology for easiest human
`
`perception that was the key to this patent. It will be shown in this report that the
`
`‘304 patent claims constructing a GUI to display information in particular
`
`locations to improve the interface between man and machine by improving the
`
`user’s perception of the relevant information, with bits and pixels comprising the
`
`GUI elements rather than cables, shafts and gears.
`
`V. Reduction of human effort - US 714,878
`
`10.
`
`In 1902, U.S. patent 714,878 was issued for a new steering
`
`mechanism. The claim was not for steering, which was well known, and not for the
`
`gears, shafts and motive power that were used. The essential claim of this patent is
`
`as follows:
`
`This invention relates to improvements in motor-vehicles or
`automobiles, and more particularly to the class of such vehicles
`wherein the front Wheels are both the driven and the steering wheels;
`and the invent-ion more especially pertains to the mechanisms and
`controlling appliances whereby the motor may be made available for
`the propulsion of the vehicle through the front steering wheels,
`whereby the motor may be employed to swing the steering-wheels to
`steer, whereby the motor may be simultaneously caused to both drive
`
`Page 6 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l 5-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`and steer, and whereby the motor may only drive the steering-wheels,
`the steering being operated manually.
`
`The improved mechanism is especially useful on large and heavy
`motor wagons or trucks in which, especially at the time of starting the
`same, considerable power is necessary to change the relative position
`of the wheels under the body.
`
`11.
`
`By this time the steering of vehicles was well known. The specific
`
`technical problem that was addressed was that with very heavy vehicles the power
`
`required to turn the steering wheels was beyond the capacity of normal human
`
`beings. They were simply not strong enough. In this patent, a mechanism is
`
`described for using power from the motor to perform the task that a human could
`
`not do. As explained in this report, the ‘304 patent, rather than using a motor to
`
`reduce human effort, describes a way of constructing a GUI to allow a human to
`
`perceive and enter information in a way that a human previously could not. Bits
`
`and pixels comprising GUI components have replaced gears, motors and shafts but
`
`again human capacity to control and interface with a machine has still been
`
`enhanced in a novel way.
`
`VI. Graphical User Interface Technology
`
`12.
`
`One of the questions at issue in the Petitioner’s arguments is whether
`
`or not GUIS constitute a technology. User interface technology is the subject of
`
`study at institutions such as MIT-Media Lab, CMU-HCI Institute in their School of
`
`Computer Science, Stanford, UC-Berkeley, University of Washington and Georgia
`
`Page 7 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`US. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`Tech. All of these highly technical institutions have strong research faculty and
`
`educational programs in human—computer interaction. The goals of HCI research
`
`are to invent new ways for people to interact with computers. This is not a new
`
`field of study, but rather a subset of man-machine interface design. Indeed, HCI
`
`has adopted a number of terms from its mechanical parent. For example, buttons,
`
`sliders, exist in both fields for study, and just as changes to these features may
`
`provide an improvement in a mechanical device, improving the equivalent features
`
`in a GUI allows a computer to function better or even in ways that were not
`
`previously conceived. For example, the various GUIS on the iPhone transform it
`
`into a phone, compass, calculator, and so on. Without these GUIs, the iPhone is a
`
`useless handheld computer. Indeed, the iPhone itself uses HCI design, for
`
`example, by using slide to unlock to access the phone to replace a mechanical lock.
`
`13.
`
`Two common measures of success in HCI research are speed and
`
`accuracy. Learnability is also a common success metric. The ease with which
`
`someone can master a user interface is very important. Although esthetics do come
`
`into play when marketing some types of products (eg, retail products), HCI
`
`researchers generally ignore this aspect and focus on making a user interface more
`
`effective rather than just prettier.
`
`14. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines technology as “the practical
`
`application of knowledge, especially in a particular area.” At issue then is the
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBl\/12015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`knowledge, or scientific principles, that cause the invention claimed in the ‘304
`
`patent to work better than previous solutions. In my opinion, at least two basic GUI
`
`principles cause users to perceive the claimed GUI as an improvement over prior
`
`GU15, namely: human visual search, and optimizing human effort. This section of
`
`the report includes a light introduction to these principles so that they can be
`
`understood with respect to the claims of the ‘304 patent.
`
`VII. GUI Architecture
`
`15.
`
`In the case of the ‘304 patent, the claims identify the specific
`
`architecture/make—up, functionality, and structural components, including order
`
`entry regions allowing for user interaction, and display regions providing
`
`information about the particular commodity market in which trades are occurring.
`
`The design of this presentation is absolutely critical to the user’s ability to correctly
`
`perceive the state of the interaction information. There are many possibilities for
`
`the design of the GUI architecture and they will vary widely in how rapidly and
`
`accurately the user can perceive information the user is trying to perceive. The
`
`claims of the ‘304 patent describe how to construct a GUI with a very specific and
`
`concrete arrangement of the presentation of the market information at particular
`
`locations relative to a static price axis so as to facilitate the user’s (trader)
`
`perception of the market.
`
`Page 9 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`16.
`
`The ‘304 claims describe a particular way of constructing a GUI with
`
`order entry regions at particular locations to allow for order entry which requires
`
`less effort of the user than before and provides greater accuracy without sacrificing
`
`speed versus the disclosed conventional screens. The ’304 patent claims a way of
`
`constructing a GUI with a specific structure and make-up for presenting
`
`information and that permits a specific way in which users can enter data and cause
`
`messages to be sent, which in this case is data parameters of trade orders and
`
`messages that represent trade orders. The ‘304 patent claims provide a GUI that a
`
`user can see, feel and interact with no differently than a mechanical device. The
`
`‘304 claims provide technical solutions to the technical problems of user’s
`
`perception of market data and entry of data.
`
`17.
`
`innovation in human control of processes has a long patent history.
`
`US Patent 3,018,661 issued in 1957 is for an aviation display. The goal of this
`
`display is as follows:
`
`It is an object of the present invention to provide an
`
`aircraft instrument constructed to facilitate the control of
`
`an aircraft simultaneously in pitch and roll by a human
`
`pilot and which preferably is combined with means to
`
`display the pitch and roll attitude of the aircraft to give a
`
`readily appreciated indication of the actual attitude of the
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM201S-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`aircraft and the action which is required to attain the
`
`desired flight path.
`
`And the patent claimed providing that particular way of presenting information as
`
`follows:
`
`1. An aircraft instrument comprising means to define a
`
`Viewing aperture, a first index supported for movement
`
`within the aperture, means within the aperture to define a
`
`datum position for the first index, driving means
`
`connected to the first index, means to control the driving
`
`means in accordance with the component of the normal
`
`plane absolute acceleration of the aircraft in direction of
`
`its Z axis so that the displacement of the first index from
`
`the said datum position is proportional to the said
`
`component of the normal plane absolute acceleration of
`
`the aircraft, a further index supported for movement
`
`within the aperture and means to displace the further
`
`index in relation to the said datum position in accordance
`
`with a demanded value, both as to magnitude and
`
`direction of the normal plane absolute acceleration, said
`
`demanded value being that required if some desired flight
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBMZOI 5-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`path is to be achieved and a maneuver of the aircraft in
`
`bank and pitch to superpose the first index and further
`
`index thus resulting in the attainment of the demanded
`
`normal plane acceleration and the desired flight path,
`
`neglecting any components of the normal plane absolute
`
`acceleration in the direction of the transverse axis of the
`
`aircraft.
`
`18.
`
`The innovation in this aviation patent relies upon the pilot’s ability to
`
`perceive his current flight state in a way that will more easily allow him to control
`
`the plane. The ‘301 patent innovates in a similar way using mouse, keyboard and
`
`screen rather than gears and dials.
`
`Page 12 of 125
`
`

`
`VIII. Human factors
`
`Case CBl\/[2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`19.
`
`This is not the place for a complete discussion of the human factors
`
`principles that impact the design of interfaces between man and machine.
`
`However, there are three that are instructive in this case. They are: short term
`
`memory, foveated perception and expressive leverage.
`
`A. Seven +/- two
`
`20. A great deal of what we do when we work depends upon our short-
`
`term memory. Short term memory consists of the knowledge we need right now
`
`for the task at hand. It has been shown that the number of concepts that can be held
`
`in short term memory is between 5 and 9, which is described as the “seven plus or
`
`minus two” rule. When the amount of information required for a task exceeds these
`
`limits we forget something to make room for a new piece of information. This is
`
`why talking with someone will cause us to forget a phone number that We just
`
`looked up. The new information from talking pushes out the phone number we just
`
`saw. In commodity trading, driving a car, or piloting aircraft there are many pieces
`
`of information that must be considered rapidly and simultaneously to perform
`
`successfully.
`
`B. Foveated perception
`
`21. When information is displayed on the screen, the speed and accuracy
`
`with which a user can interact is heavily influenced by their ability to find desired
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015 -00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`information on the screen. The visual search for information is largely controlled
`
`by the anatomy of the eye and specifically the retina. Figure 3 shows the anatomy
`
`of the eye. Most of the retina is the periphery with a small spot near the center
`
`called the macula or the fovea. The periphery has a lot of sensors but they are quite
`
`spread out and can only sense gray, not color. This means that most of the image
`
`that we see at any one time is gray and quite blurry. The sensors at the fovea are
`
`densely packed so that we see in high resolution and they also can sense color.
`
`Fovea
`High Resolution
`COMP
`Slaw
`Saccade Else:
`
`Figure 3 — Eye anatomy
`
`22. At first most people do not believe that their eye works this way
`
`because they think they see everything in high resolution and in color. In actuality
`
`that is your visual memory that is supplying the information as well as the fact that
`
`your eye can move very rapidly. As soon as you think about wanting to see
`
`something, your eye moves to look at it and it appears in high resolution. This
`
`effect can be understood by a simple experiment. Pick a line of text in the middle
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`of this paragraph. Hold your eyes still and without moving them, attempt to read
`
`the lines above and below. With double-spaced text you will not be able to see
`
`anything but a blur outside of the line you are looking at.
`
`23.
`
`Because only the fovea can pick up high resolution information, it
`
`relies upon the eye’s ability to move very rapidly (5 times per second) and on the
`
`periphery to identify important locations to look. However, the periphery is limited
`
`in its ability to identify where to look because of its low resolution (blurry images).
`
`Good interface design will organize information so that it is easy for the periphery
`
`to identify where the eye should look for the desired information. For example, this
`
`is why warning lights in a car are displayed around a car’s more frequently viewed
`
`speedometer. The claims of the ‘304 patent describe a particular way of
`
`constructing a GUI with a specific set of visual relationships to simplify visual
`
`Search for the information.
`
`C. Expressive leverage
`
`24.
`
`The process of visual search is only part of the technical problem of
`
`creating an efficient interactive solution. We also need to minimize the human
`
`effort to interact with the GUI. One principle of such interactivity is called
`
`“expressive leverage” [OLSE 07]. Expressive leverage is the ratio between the
`
`amount of information to be expressed and the amount of human effort required in
`
`such expression. High expressive leverage creates very efficient user interfaces.
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`Natural languages such as English are attractive due to their high expressive
`
`leverage.
`
`25.
`
`A very common way to measure human effort in an interaction is the
`
`keystroke-level model (KLM) [CARD 08]. This simply counts the number of key
`
`or button entries required to accomplish a task. This measure has many limitations
`
`but it will serve here as a simple measure of expressive leverage in this discussion.
`
`Use Previous
`
`Name:
`
`I George Mendenhall
`
`Street Address:
`
`1450 Sonoma Blvd
`
`City:
`
`_Pig Creek
`
`J
`
`l
`
`_
`
`Figure 4 — Form Filling
`
`26.
`
`In one application a user may be required to enter a shipping address
`
`using the form shown in figure 4. To enter the address shown in the figure requires
`
`49 key presses plus 5 mouse clicks for a KLM measure of 54. If the user enters this
`
`address many times, the designers can introduce the “Use Previous” button that
`
`requires only 1 click (expressive leverage of 54/ 1) to accomplish the task. This is
`
`the technique used by Amazon in US Patent 5,960,411. These examples are
`
`modern instances of the same kind of innovation found in the power steering
`
`Page 16 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`patent. Again bits and pixels have replaced shafts, wheels and gears but the
`
`concept of magnifying the power of humans to effect desired actions is the same.
`
`IX.
`
`The ‘304 patent analysis
`
`27.
`
`The preceding discussion has laid out some of the knowledge and
`
`principles found in the field of interface design. We have shown that improvements
`
`to interfaces have long been the subject of patentable technologies and provide
`
`specific benefits. In particular, the ‘304 patent addresses the technical problem of
`
`increasing the speed and accuracy of entering data and usability by constructing a
`
`GUI to improve user interaction by displaying market information and order entry
`
`locations selectable by a single action to set parameters and send order messages at
`
`particular locations relative to price levels along a static price axis. It is not the
`
`nature of commodity trading that is claimed in the ‘304 patent but rather the
`
`technology of a new mechanism for improved efficiency in entering data and
`
`sending messages representing trades that is claimed.
`
`Page 17 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l5—00l6l
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`I-I
`I-
`
`IIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIH
`
`SYOOM FGBL DECQ9
`10:43:44
`
`a.§é"'.!."'!‘a'i
`HIEEEIEHIII
`
`II
`II
`II
`II
`II
`II
`II
`II
`II
`II
`II
`El
`WI
`EH
`
`Hi
`
`IIIIIIIIIEEEEHHEEIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
`
`Figure 5 — [Figure 1] from the ‘304 patent
`
`The second paragraph (first element) of claim I is as follows:
`
`dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of
`
`locations in a bid display region, each location in the bid display
`
`region corresponding to a price level along a common static price
`
`axis, the first indicator representing quantity associated with at least
`
`one order to buy the commodity at the highest bid price currently
`
`available in the market;
`
`29.
`
`This element provides benefits for several reasons. First is that the
`
`axis alignment improves visual search by the fovea for a specific market price.
`
`Alignment along the axis gives the eye a very specific direction to look. Arranging
`
`the prices in regular intervals gives the brain’s visual system a good idea of exactly
`
`17
`
`Page 18 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 132
`
`how far to look to locate a specific price. The third paragraph of claim 1 is as
`
`follows:
`
`dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality of
`
`locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask display
`
`region corresponding to a price level along the common static price
`
`axis, the second indicator representing quantity associated with at
`
`least one order to sell the commodity at the lowest ask price currently
`
`available in the market;
`
`The same points as those of paragraph 2 apply here. In addition, the alignment of
`
`ask information along the same axis as the bid information allows for a unified
`
`perception of both aspects of commodity trading. The requirement of the common
`
`static price axis displayed against both bid and ask solves the technical problem of
`
`the user efficiently perceiving the whole market.
`
`30.
`
`The fourth paragraph of claim 1 continues:
`
`displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to fixed price
`
`levels positioned along the common static price axis such that when
`
`the inside market changes, the price levels along the common static
`
`price axis do not move and at least one of the first and second
`
`indicators moves in the bid or ask display regions relative to the
`
`common static price axis;
`
`The commodity market is highly dynamic. By tying the bid and ask regions to a
`
`common price axis that does not move, the inventors have harnessed the eye’s
`
`periphery. Here the ‘304 patent provides a GUI that improves on the technical
`
`problem of interactively responding to a changing market. By organizing the
`
`18
`
`Page 19 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l5-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`display around a static price axis, the claimed interface enhances the user’s
`
`perception of other market information such as “highest bid” or “lowest ask”
`
`prices. These indicators moving relative to the static price axis makes their
`
`behavior much easier to understand.
`
`31.
`
`The fifth paragraph of claim 1 reads:
`
`displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for
`receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding
`to a price level along the common static price axis; and
`
`This paragraph of the claim further defines the structure and features of the GUI,
`
`namely the order entry region that a user may select to send trade orders. This
`
`paragraph shows that the claimed invention addresses the whole interactive
`
`problem, not just the visual display. Specifically, the claimed GUI provides
`
`functionality for a trader to not only understand the market but repeatedly take
`
`action within that market. Again the “static price axis” becomes a concrete visual
`
`anchor that visually organizes bid/ask actions with market information. This is the
`
`same kind of tight integration that merges the speedometer (information) with the
`
`steering wheel (action) to simplify driving a car or avionics instruments
`
`(instruments) with aircraft control (action).
`
`32.
`
`The sixth and final paragraph of claim 1 reads:
`
`in response to a selection of a particular location of the order entry
`
`region by a single action of a user input device, setting a plurality of
`
`19
`
`Page 20 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l5-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the
`trade order to the electronic exchange.
`
`This element requires that user interact with the claimed features of the GUI one
`
`time to both set a plurality of parameters of a trade order and then send the trade
`
`order to the exchange.
`
`33.
`
`The whole of the language of claim 1 is not about executing
`
`commodity trades. The claim provides the structure, make-up, and functionality to
`
`address technical problems of providing a GUI that is efficient to perceive and
`
`accurate and efficient for entering data over the conventional systems (e.g., Fig. 2
`
`GUIs) that the patent discloses. The inventors have applied GUI design knowledge
`
`to the particular area of commodities trading to achieve a practical solution of
`
`providing a more efficient interface for doing commodity trading. Thus, they have
`
`applied technical knowledge to a technical problem.
`
`X. Market speed
`
`34.
`
`In previous Work by the inventors and others it was common to
`
`provide the current market bid and ask prices in a fixed location in a GUI. Figure 6
`
`reproduces figure 2 from the ‘304 patent. The patent describes this as the normal
`
`user interface for commodity trading before the technology covered by the ‘304
`
`patent was introduced. It is also my understanding that these displayed prices
`
`could be clicked to execute an order at the current market price. The problem is
`
`Page 21 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`that people cannot respond to visual data in less than 200 milliseconds and usually
`
`much longer. However, the commodities market changes much faster than that.
`
`This means that traders using such a user interface would not always order at the
`
`price they thought they were (if they were trying to obtain a particular price)
`
`because between the time they decided to order and they could execute a click the
`
`price would have changed. From the user’s perspective, an order placed at a price
`
`that differed from their intended price would be a data entry error. From the
`
`computer’s perspective, the interface would be operating correctly. The ‘304
`
`method provides an improved GUI for traders who want to enter an order at a
`
`particular price because it constructs the GUI in a way that removes that
`
`discrepancy between the user’s intended price and what the computer understands
`
`the user’s selected price to be. This allows for exact price orders to be executed,
`
`addressing this problem.
`
`Page 22 of 125
`
`

`
`References
`
`Case CBM2015—O0l61
`
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`[CARD 80] Card, Stuart K; Moran, Thomas P; Allen, Newell (1980). "The
`
`keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems".
`
`Communications of the ACM 23 (7): 396-410.
`
`[OLSE 07] Olsen, D. R. "Evaluating User Interface Systems Research,"
`
`UIST 2007, ACM (2007)
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and that
`
`all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Date:
`
`By:
`
`Dan R. Ols
`
`,J.
`
`Page 23 of 125
`
`

`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`[CARD 80]
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 125
`
`

`
`! ~ln-ah~ctkm Graphics, and J.D. f:oIe,.., image Pet c:essing t2di~er T h e K ey s t ro k e- L e v e 1 Model %r User Per%rmance Time with Interactwe Systems Smart K. Card and Thomas P. Moran Xerox Palo A£o Research Center Allen Newel1 U meet.st'l, CarnegiedVIetlon r-. s// There are ~eg:N ms:poets of aser~emt,xu{er ~rforma~ce tha~ sys*em designers sh~d sys~emarka{~ ~ e r. This arlic|e prop~yses a ~im~}e m~eL the Neys{T{.>ke-Levd Medea, for predkd~g o,~e aspe~'t M w2rferma:mee: the time i:t takes ,a~ expel u~wr ~;:o perform a givers *az~ m~ a give= eom,p~:{er sys{~a. The model is b.ae~ e~ counting keystrokes :a~d @~er |owdevel operatkms., i:~c{udir~g the user's ~me=taI ~re~aratioas arid the* system's re Pe e is coded fa ~¢~ge~ of ~e~e {~*rati~as an.d epe~a~r Nm¢~ s~:~ Ce Nve Ne~c~i~s,~ HeurNfic n~}es are :gh'ef~ Nr p'redicti~g ~here men~al prelaara~ie~s ¢~ce~r. When tested against{ data ¢m 1|) diffe:re~ systems, ~N~I's pee~ic~ifye e~f N 2t ~reem fee tMividual ~asks.. A= examNe N gia'ee m Rlus{ra{e h(~ NEe m~l .eaa ~ ~aed to pr~dece parametric predie{km.g add brow set~:sifivt{y aaaiysis c:a:a be ~:sexi m redeem ce~e|~.sfo~s in the face of ~mc,e~aia as:sumt~ti~o~:s, Finally, the model ~s e@m~ar~ ~o ~ereral s*mp|er ver,s&ms. "INe N, ter~fiaJ fete ~k~r ~he Keystroke*Level Model i.n gys{em de:skgn is N s~c:e:~se,d.. Key %V¢~,rds a~d Fvarase~: ~tmJa~<~a~mer N,terfaee, ~,:umara.e@eap~tef i~eraetkm, ~.er m¢~l, ~s~er ~: e~/g:u~rive ~yeho~gy, erg s, :kmma:= fae'{o~rs~ ~y~ae:m,~ de~iga CR Ca~eg{~ri~es: 3L!~i, 4.6, 8.| Dab{leas ,m acad its 4a~e appea£ a~4 ~<a~¢¢ }5 givca *:ha;~ ~a~F/mg }s b> A~o, CA 941<N ,A N~*aeetL D,epae~rf~er>: of <::~f~pa~:te¢ Sc,~ace, C~ Fhe dcsigs and evaluation of imeracti,~e computer systems sho~ald ~ake imo accnun~ ~he ~o~a! per~brma~<e of the combit~ed ~serocompu~er system. Such an at<:ou~ woukJ reflcc~ the psychological charac~eristic.~ of users and ~heir imerac~ion wish {he ~ask and the computer. This rarely ncc~.:~rs in any sss~ematic and explicit way, The causes of this fl~ilare may lie partly in amt~de:; ioward doe ~ibi~i~y of dealing s~ccesduily with psy~. chok}gicM factors, such as the belief @m~ i~mmion~ s~,b~ ]ective eaperiesce~ sad anecdote ~brm the only possible bases ff:,r deMing wif~ ~hem Whatever may be ~rue ot' ~hcae more gk:>bat iss:ues~ oae major cau:se is the ab:>ence of g<xxJ analysis ~ools for a,::_~:ssiag combined user.,<om- purer performance. There exists quite a bit of research retevan~ to ~he area of user-computer performance, b~ mo:s~ of it is preIiminary is m~ture. Pew et aL [14t ia a review o{ ¢3 g<r~e~'~fiaIIy relevant haman-system pertbrmar~ce models~ co~achade "~ha~ is~egrative models of huma~~ p<r%rmance compa~iNe with the requirements ~br representing cors- mand and comrol system ~rR>rmance do so~, exist a~ the present @he." Ramsey and A~w~.x>d {/51~ after reviewing the human L~c~ors literature pertb~em to computer sys- tem:s, conclude 1hat while ~here exists eno~gh material ~o develop a qualitative 'human factors design guide," ~here is i.asufficient material ~br a "quantitative reference hand book2' This paper presents one s~scific quanti~aive analysis took a simple model for the time it takes a user ~o perform a task wi~.h a given me~hod on an interactive comp~ster system This model appears to as to ~ simp}e enough, accurate enough, and flexible enouglh to be applied m practical design and evNuation situatmns~ The model addresses only a smgb