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.
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`Case CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056 B2
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. ____
` Filed: June 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Contents
`THE CLAIMED INVENTION ....................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................................. 1
`
`B. Dependent Claims 5-7 ........................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`Price Axis .............................................................................................. 4
`
`B. Order Icon .............................................................................................. 7
`
`C.
`
`Receiving a User Input Indicating a Desired Price for an Order .
`. . by Selection of One of a Plurality of Locations . . . Along the
`Price Axis ............................................................................................10
`
`D.
`
`The Desired Price ................................................................................10
`
`III. TT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO AN “ABSTRACT IDEA”
`UNDER ALICE PRONG ONE ......................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Petitioners Ignore and Overgeneralize the Claim Elements ...............11
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They Improve the
`Functioning of the Computer ..............................................................13
`
`1.
`
`GUIs Are Integral Components of Computers, and
`Improvements to GUIs Are Improvements to the
`Computer ...................................................................................13
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They are
`“Undoubtedly Not Abstract” ...............................................................15
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They Are Not
`Directed to a Fundamental Economic or Longstanding
`Commercial Practice, A Business Method, Or a Generic GUI ...........16
`
`Petitioners’ § 101 Arguments Are Further Deficient for the
`Dependent Claims ...............................................................................20
`
`IV. THE CLAIMS PASS PART 2 OF ALICE BECAUSE THEY RECITE
`AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT ........................................................................21
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`A.
`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`Alice Prong II: Being Known, and Being Routine and
`Conventional are Different Concepts, and § 101 is a Different
`Test Than Anticipation or Obviousness ..............................................21
`
`B.
`
`TT’s Claims As A Whole Establish An Inventive Concept................25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Claimed Inventive Concept Improves Technology ...........25
`
`The Inventive Concept Is “Necessarily Rooted in
`Computer Technology” .............................................................26
`
`V.
`
`THE ’056 PATENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR CBM REVIEW........................28
`
`A.
`
`The ’056 Patent Falls Under the Technological Exception ................28
`
`1.
`
`The Claims Recite a Technical Feature that is Novel and
`Unobvious .................................................................................29
`
`B.
`
`The ’056 Patent Does Not Claim “Data Processing” or “Other
`Operation” (e.g., a Business Method). ................................................33
`
`1.
`
`The Claims of the ’056 Patent Are Directed to a GUI
`Tool, Not “Data Processing” .....................................................33
`
`VI. PETITIONERS’ PRIOR ART ARGUMENTS FAIL ...................................34
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners’ TSE Grounds Fail ............................................................34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Fails to Prove TSE Is Prior Art ............................34
`
`The Invention Was Conceived Prior to Any Alleged
`Distribution of TSE and Diligently Reduced to Practice..........41
`
`The Failure of Others to Make the Claimed Combination
`Demonstrates the Non-obviousness of the Invention ...............56
`
`TSE Does Not Disclose or Suggest the Claimed “order
`icon” of Claims 5-7 ...................................................................64
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners’ Silverman Grounds Fail ...................................................68
`
`1.
`
`Silverman’s Figures 4, 5, and 17 Show Logical Models,
`Not a GUI ..................................................................................68
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`A POSA Would Not Have Implemented Silverman as a
`GUI ............................................................................................71
`
`Petitioners’ Silverman Grounds Rely on Misinformed
`Testimony ..................................................................................74
`
`Even if Improperly Read as Teaching a GUI, Silverman
`Does Not Disclose the Claimed “price axis” ............................76
`
`Petitioners’ Addition of Hogan to the Silverman Ground
`Does Not Cure Silverman’s Defects, Nor Does it Render
`the Combination Obvious .........................................................77
`
`The Alleged Combination of Silverman, Togher, Cooper,
`and Hogan Does Not Disclose or Teach the Claimed
`“Order Icon” Recited in Claims 5-7 .........................................79
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`In re Abele,
`684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ............................................................................ 21
`
`Page(s)
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 72
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`109 F. Supp. 3d 916, 942 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ...................................................... 22
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Atlanta Attachment Co. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`516 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ...................................................................... 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 35, 38, 39
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
`154 F.3d 1321,1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................. 43
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .................................................................... 35, 38
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine,
`676 F.3d at 1073 ........................................................................................... 72, 75
`
`In re Dardick,
`496 F.2d 1234 (C.C.P.A. 1974) .......................................................................... 55
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. HOTELS.COM,
`773 F.3d 1245 Fed. Cir. 2014 ......................................................................passim
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1980) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`
`Eaton v. Evans,
`204 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) ....................passim
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 73
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 13, 15, 19
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`No. 2015-1693 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) ............................................................. 36
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 21
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 72
`
`In re Jolley,
`308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................. 42, 50, 52
`
`Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 728 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 40
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 72
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 42, 50
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................. 17, 24
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 13, 15, 19, 22
`
`Netsirv & Local Motion MN v. Boxbee, Inc.,
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`PGR2015-00009, Paper 10 (PTAB Aug. 4, 2015) .................................................. 39
`
`Omega Eng'g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`475 U.S. 809, 106 S. Ct. 1578 (1986)........................................................... 56, 75
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`774 F.2d 1082, 1098-99 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........................................................... 56
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Price v. Symsek,
`988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Scott v. Finney,
`34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 42
`
`Scott v. Koyama,
`281 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1193, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................ 39
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 31
`
`In re Wyer,
`655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ............................................................................ 34
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................ 21, 23, 70
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g) ................................................................................................... 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 21, 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................. 29
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ......................................................................................................... 28
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`
`I.
`
`THE CLAIMED INVENTION
`
`The ’056 patent claims specific features and functionality of a GUI tool for
`
`electronic order entry. The claims are not directed to a business method and merely
`
`practicing such a method on a generic “GUI” or “display.” The claimed GUI tools
`
`improve how a user interfaces with the computer by improving prior GUIs used for
`
`displaying market information and entering electronic orders. Thus, the claims are
`
`directed to technology that improves the functioning of a computer because the
`
`claimed invention changes the function of a computer permitting a user to achieve
`
`a desired result that is not achieved with a conventional computer without the
`
`claimed invention. The patent claims multiple inventive features, some
`
`summarized below.
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 provides a new “user interface [that] presents [market] information
`
`in an intuitive format, allowing the trader to make informed decisions quickly.”
`
`Ex.1001, 2:44-46. The solution includes indicators displayed in a particular way
`
`(i.e., relative to an axis on different portions of the computer screen) to enable the
`
`user to provide inputs by selecting locations along the axis. Id. at 1:15-17, 2:44-66.
`
`The claimed solution also provides (i) the ability to set a default quantity and
`
`(ii) a plurality of locations corresponding to price levels along the price axis, which
`
`can be selected to specify a desired price for an order. Id. at Fig. 3A, 8:28-40 (e.g.,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`selecting locations corresponding to price levels along the price axis by releasing a
`
`bid or offer token at a location). Claim 1 covers an improved interface for
`
`providing information to the user, and that enables a user to enter orders in a more
`
`intuitive manner than the prior art.
`
`Claim 1 is directed to that solution by requiring an interface that provides for
`
`displaying bid and offer indicators relative to a price axis, the ability to set a
`
`default quantity, and a plurality of locations corresponding to price levels along the
`
`price axis, which can be selected to set a desired price for an order:
`
`displaying a plurality of bid indicators representing quantity
`associated with the plurality of bid orders, the plurality of bid
`indicators being displayed at locations corresponding to
`prices of the plurality of bid orders along a price axis;
`
`displaying a plurality of offer indicators representing quantity
`associated with the plurality of offer orders, the plurality of
`offer indicators being displayed at locations corresponding to
`prices of the plurality [of] offer orders along the price axis;
`
`receiving a user input indicating a default quantity to be used
`to determine a quantity for each of a plurality of orders to be
`placed by the user at one or more price levels;
`
`receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an order to
`be placed by the user, the desired price being specified by
`selection of one of a plurality of locations corresponding to
`price levels along the price axis;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`and sending the order for the default quantity at the desired
`price to the electronic exchange.
`
`Id. at 13:60-14:21 (emphases added). Fig. 3A shows an example of this improved
`
`GUI:
`
`
`This is not simply a graph, but instead a GUI for entering trade orders that displays
`
`specific types of indicators corresponding to a price axis and provides locations
`
`corresponding to the price axis that can be selected to set a price for an order. The
`
`order is an electronic message sent by the invention to an electronic exchange.
`
`Thus, the patent discloses and claims technical features of a GUI tool solving a
`
`technical problem arising with prior GUI tools.
`
`B. Dependent Claims 5-7
`Claims 5-7 provide further novel and non-obvious improvements.
`
`Specifically, claim 5, depending from claim 1, recites “displaying an order icon at
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`a location that corresponds to the desired price level along the price axis, the order
`
`icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange.” Claim 6, depending
`
`from claim 5, requires that the bid indicators, offer indicators and order icon are
`
`displayed with different visual characteristics such that the user can easily discern
`
`them. In claim 7, depending from claim 5, the order icon indicates the default
`
`quantity working at the electronic exchange.
`
`The structure and functionality in claims 5-7 relate to displaying icons
`
`representing the user’s own orders, as opposed to the bid and ask indicators that
`
`may represent cumulative quantity at the exchange at particular price levels.
`
`Displaying these order icons relative to the same price axis as the bid/ask
`
`indicators and the price setting locations provides a significant advantage over
`
`prior art GUI tools. For example, this feature further improves the usability of the
`
`GUI tool by permitting the user to more intuitively see their own orders in the
`
`context of the overall market. Prior art trading screens displayed information
`
`relating to the user’s orders in separate windows. The features of these dependent
`
`claims also solve the technical problem of conserving screen real estate.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Price Axis
`A.
`Petitioners suggest “price axis” should be construed as “a reference line for
`
`plotting prices, including labeled, unlabeled, visible and invisible reference lines.”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`Pet. 14. This proposed construction requires clarification—an ordered list of prices
`
`that omits prices when there are no orders at that price, is not a price axis. “Price
`
`axis” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in view of the intrinsic
`
`evidence, which comports with the clarification that a price axis cannot be a mere
`
`ordered list of prices that omits prices when there are no orders at that price.
`
`The specification describes a “value axis” and repeatedly states that the
`
`“value” may represent “price.” Ex.1001, 2:27-28, 2:47-48, 6:3-11, 7:37-43, Fig.
`
`3A). Figures 3B, 3C, and 4 likewise illustrate an exemplary value axis, which in
`
`these embodiments is the vertical axis. See Ex.1001, Figs. 3A-3C; Ex.2169, ¶37.
`
`As shown in these figures, when there are no orders at a particular “value” or
`
`“price,” that “value” or “price” level remains displayed. Id. ¶¶37-43. Prices are
`
`plotted against coordinates (price levels) on the axis. Ex.1001, 7:23-30; 7:37-43;
`
`Figs. 3A-3C; Ex.2169, ¶41. Petitioners appear to construe “price axis,” like an
`
`imaginary line along which things are simply aligned. Pet. 62 (labeling a dividing
`
`line as a “price axis”). Petitioners’ interpretation ignores that a value axis serves a
`
`function beyond simple alignment and provides values (prices) that dictate
`
`positions of the data. Ex.2169, ¶41-42; see Ex.2035.
`
`Unlike the claimed price axis, at the time of the invention conventional
`
`screens showed lists of bid prices and offer prices only for prices with orders
`
`pending. See Ex.2169, ¶¶31-32. For example, in a conventional screen labeled FIG.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`2 in U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, the best ask price is “7627,” followed by other ask
`
`prices “7629,” “7630,” “7631,” and “7632.” Ex.2169, ¶30. In Figure 2, the ask
`
`price “7628” is omitted because there is no order at that price. Nor is there a gap
`
`shown between “7627” and “7629.” Ex.2169, ¶32. In such an ordered list, the
`
`prices are arranged relative to one another (ascending/descending), not placed
`
`according to coordinates dictated by values on a reference line. Ex.2169, ¶¶41-42.
`
`Because price levels without orders are not displayed, there is no price axis in this
`
`example.
`
`The intrinsic evidence is consistent with an interpretation of “price axis”
`
`with values dictating position of the data, as opposed to mere ordered lists. Figures
`
`3A, 3B, 3C, and 4 show values/price levels when there are no orders at those
`
`prices. See Ex.2169, ¶¶37-38. During prosecution, Applicant distinguished the
`
`claims from ordered lists, arguing “Silverman does not describe an axis of prices . .
`
`. . Rather, Silverman’s logical models only display prices for which there are
`
`orders in the market.” Ex.1002, 178 (emphasis in original); Ex.2169, ¶39. Later in
`
`that response, Applicant distinguished the claims again, arguing: “both Silverman
`
`(assuming again that Silverman shows a display, which Applicant states that it
`
`does not) and [Belden only] display prices for which orders exist in the market.”
`
`Ex.1002, 179; Ex.2169, ¶39. In other words, neither reference disclosed an axis of
`
`prices where price levels are displayed that have no corresponding bids or offers.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`Ex.2169, ¶¶38-42. These statements dictate that the claimed “price axis” cannot be
`
`one that only displays prices for which orders exist in the market.
`
`If the specification’s teachings were not enough, Applicant’s statements
`
`indicating what the claimed price axis “could not be” (Ex.1002, 178-79) amounts
`
`to a clear disavowal.1 See Omega Eng'g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314,
`
`1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (disclaimer in view of applicant’s statements
`
`differentiating invention from prior art); Ex.2169, ¶¶37-38. Petitioners’ proposed
`
`construction of “price axis,” therefore, requires the clarification that an ordered list
`
`of prices omitting price levels when there are no orders at that price is not a price
`
`axis.
`
`B. Order Icon
`A POSA reading the claims and specification would understand claim 5’s
`
`“order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange” must indicate, to
`
`the user, that the user has an order at a particular price level along the price axis by
`
`displaying the order icon at the price level. Ex.2169, ¶46. The plain language
`
`requires that the icon be displayed “at a location that corresponds to the desired
`
`price level along [the] price axis. Id.; Ex.1001, 14:37-40. Because the claim also
`
`
`1 Petitioners’ argument that Applicant did not clearly disavow “unlabeled axes,” is
`
`irrelevant. See Pet. 14.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`recites “bid indicators” and “offer indicators” via independent claim 1, the
`
`separately-claimed “order icon” must represent something distinct from the
`
`“[bid/offer] indicators.” See Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522
`
`F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the general assumption is that different terms
`
`have different meanings”); see Ex.2169, ¶49. With respect to exemplary user order
`
`indicators, the ’056 Patent (referring to Figure 3A) discloses:
`
`The priority view 312 offers several other advantages to a
`trader. The offers 304 and the bids 300 are displayed in
`different colors, shapes, textures or sizes, or other
`distinguishing visual characteristics, to allow the trader to
`quickly ascertain the current state of the market for this
`item. Additionally, orders made by the trader are
`displayed having a different visual characteristic than the
`visual characteristic used to display orders of other
`traders. This allows the trader to easily distinguish
`between their own orders and the orders of other traders.
`For example, in FIG. 3a, the trader is able to
`immediately determine that offers 304(3) and 304(7)
`are the trader's own offers 304, and therefore should be
`discounted from any market analysis. In FIG. 3a, the
`trader can also quickly determine that the trader himself
`is the trader with the most bids 300 in place, which
`suggests to the trader that the value for the item may be
`driven down if the trader removes his bids 300 from the
`pit 220.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`Ex.1001, 7:66-8:15 (emphasis added). As such, the claimed “order icon”
`
`distinguishes the trader’s own orders from the market’s aggregated orders and
`
`identifies that the user/trader has an order at the price where the “order icon” is
`
`displayed.
`
`Petitioners do not propose any particular construction, but advance an
`
`interpretation encompassing the aggregated order quantity already alleged as the
`
`claimed display of the plurality of bids and asks. Pet. 41. But this interpretation
`
`renders the elements recited in claims 5-7 superfluous because the independent
`
`claim already recites a display of a plurality of bids and asks. Furthermore, claim 6
`
`requires that the bid indicators, offer indicators, and “order icon indicating the
`
`user’s order” be displayed using distinct visual characteristics. Ex.1001, 14:41-45.
`
`Petitioners’ proposition that an aggregate quantity of bids or offers, e.g., the
`
`alleged “bid indicators” and “offer indicators,” also represent the claimed “order
`
`icon indicating the user’s order” fails because if this were true, the “order icon
`
`indicating the user’s order” could not have a distinct visual characteristic from the
`
`alleged bid/offer indicators. The Board should thus interpret an “order icon
`
`indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange” as an icon indicating to the
`
`user that the user has an order at a particular level along the price axis, distinct
`
`from other orders at the same level.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`C. Receiving a User Input Indicating a Desired Price for an Order . . .
`by Selection of One of a Plurality of Locations . . . Along the Price
`Axis
`
`Petitioners proposed a construction of “receiving a user input indicating a
`
`desired price for an order . . . by selection of one of a plurality of locations . . .
`
`along the price axis” in claim 1 as “adjusting an order after it has been created”
`
`(Pet. 20) contradicts the claim’s plain language. Ex.2169, ¶44. This says nothing
`
`about “adjusting” and nothing about “size” or quantity. Instead, reading the claim
`
`element with surrounding elements, a POSA would understand this term to mean
`
`“specifying ‘a desired price’ by receiving a selection, via a user input, of ‘one of a
`
`plurality of locations corresponding to price levels along the price axis.’” Id.
`
`D. The Desired Price
`Petitioners propose that “the desired price” is “a price that is specified for an
`
`order placed by a user.” Pet. 21. This requires clarification, however, because
`
`claim 1 culminates with “sending the order for the default quantity at the desired
`
`price to the electronic exchange,” where the GUI has received “a user input
`
`indicating [the] desired price for an order to be placed by the user.” Ex.1001,
`
`13:11-19. Because “the desired price” originates from the user input in anticipation
`
`of placing an order, the BRI based on the plain language of the claim for “the
`
`desired price” is “a price that is specified for an order to be placed by a user.”
`
`Ex.2169, ¶51.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`III. TT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO AN “ABSTRACT IDEA”
`UNDER ALICE PRONG ONE
`Petitioners Ignore and Overgeneralize the Claim Elements
`A.
`Petitioners ignore most claim elements in arguing that the claims are
`
`directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has rejected this practice because
`
`“describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the
`
`language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the
`
`rule.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756255, at *6
`
`(Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016).
`
`Petitioners allege that the abstract idea is “graphing (or displaying) bids and
`
`offers to assist a trader in making an order.” Pet. 1. However, even assuming this is
`
`an abstract idea, it is over-generalized and “untethered” from the claim elements
`
`because it ignores the recitations of specific construction, structure, and make-up
`
`of the GUI (“the claimed GUI construction”) in the claim. TT objects to this over-
`
`generalization and mischaracterization of the claims. For example, claim 1 recites a
`
`combination of structure and functionality:
`
`displaying a plurality of bid indicators representing quantity
`associated with the plurality of bid orders, the plurality of bid
`indicators being displayed at locations corresponding to
`prices of the plurality of bid orders along a price axis;
`
`displaying a plurality of offer indicators representing quantity
`associated with the plurality of offer orders, the plurality of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`offer indicators being displayed at locations corresponding
`to prices of the plurality offer orders along the price axis;
`
`receiving a user input indicating a default quantity to be used to
`determine a quantity for each of a plurality of orders to be
`placed by the user at one or more price levels;
`
`receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an
`order to be placed by the user, the desired price being
`specified by selection of one of a plurality of locations
`corresponding to price levels along the price axis;
`
`Ex.1001, 14:1-14:18 (emphasis added to show structure and functionality).
`
`These GUI elements cannot be dismissed as merely “providing a degree of
`
`particularity.” Pet. 28 (citing Ultramercial, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In
`
`Ultramercial, “the majority of the limitations describe[d] only the abstract idea of
`
`showing an advertisement before delivering free content” and an additional
`
`limitation, “such as consulting an activity log” merely “add[ed] a degree of
`
`particularity.” Id. at 715. Here, the claim elements do not describe only the
`
`purported “abstract idea,” trading, or displaying market information. Rather, the
`
`inventive concept of the claims is directed to particular features and functionality
`
`of a GUI tool that distinguish the prior art.
`
`Petitioners’ analysis is facially flawed because it ignores core features of
`
`TT’s claimed invention to find claims directed to an abstract idea. See Enfish, 2016
`
`WL 2756255, at *6 (rejecting practice of “describing the claims at such a high
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`level of abstraction and untethered from the claim language . . . .”); see Ex.1028, 6
`
`(holding claims are not directed to abstract idea of displaying and updating
`
`marketing information and placing an order because this “ignores much of the
`
`detail of the representative claims”).
`
`Therefore, in light of the claimed elements, the invention is not directed to
`
`“graphing (or displaying) bids and offers to assist a trader in making an order.” The
`
`’056 claims do not abstractly “provid[e] a trader with financial information” or
`
`“display what a trader had done in his mind since trading began.” Pet. 27-28.
`
`B.
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They Improve the
`Functioning of the Computer
`1. GUIs Are Integral Components of Computers, and
`Improvements to GUIs Are Improvements to the Computer
`
`A GUI is an integral component of a computer, just like the processor,
`
`memory, and network interface. See Ex.2168, ¶¶25-29; Ex.2174, ¶¶12-14; see also
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (identifying an “interface” as a computer component); Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(same).
`
`First, at the most basic level, the claimed GUI improves the computer
`
`because it allows the computer to be used in new and inventive ways. Ex.2174,
`
`¶¶12-15. A specific improvement to the structure, make-up, and functionality of
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`the GUI itself, as claimed, inherently improves the functioning of the computer.
`
`Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *4 (“Software can make non-abstract improvements
`
`to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.”). In many cases,
`
`without a GUI a computer would be worthless. For example, using various GUIs
`
`on the iPh