Paper No. ______
`Filed: March 6, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC.,
`and TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`THE CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO STATUTORY SUBJECT
`MATTER IN SATISFACTION OF 35 U.S.C. § 101. ........................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`The Claims Are Directed To Patentable Technology–A GUI
`Tool. ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`The Patented Invention Solved Technical Problems with
`Prior GUIs. ............................................................................................. 3
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Problem with Conventional Trading GUIs:
`Failed to Effectively Visualize Information. .......................... 3
`
`The Claimed Solution to the Problem: A New GUI
`That Improved Speed and Accuracy. ...................................... 4
`
`2.
`
`The Claimed Features and Functionality of the Improved
`GUI Are An Inventive Concept, Not Conventional. ....................... 7
`
`a)
`
`The Claimed GUI Features Were the Inventive
`Contribution. ............................................................................... 9
`
`3.
`
`A New GUI Is New Technology. ..................................................... 10
`
`The Current 101 Framework. ........................................................................ 11
`
`The Claims Are Patent Eligible Because There Is No Preemption
`Concern. ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Claims Fail to Impermissibly Preempt Because There
`Is Evidence that Other Ways to Practice the Abstract Idea
`Using a Computer Exist. ..................................................................... 13
`
`Non-Infringing TD Product that Allows Presenting
`Graphed Data to a Trader and Accepting His or Her
`Orders. ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Non-Infringing TT Product that Presents Graphed Data to
`A Trader and Accepts His or Her Orders. ....................................... 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`D. Under a Proper Application of the Alice Test, the Claims are
`Patent-Eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. ............................................................ 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Claims Are Not Directed To the Abstract Idea
`Adopted In the Institution Decision. ................................................ 18
`
`The Claims Recite An Inventive Concept Other Than An
`Abstract Idea. ........................................................................................ 20
`
`New Case Law Confirms That the Claims are Patent
`Eligible. .................................................................................................. 22
`
`III. THE PRIOR ART GROUND SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
`THE TSE TRANSLATION FILED BY TD (EXHIBIT 1004)
`SHOULD BE EXCLUDED OR GIVEN NO WEIGHT. ................................ 25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The TSE Translation in Exhibit 1004 Is Unreliable. .................................. 26
`
`At Least Pages 101-140 Should Be Excluded For Failing to
`Comply With 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). ............................................................... 28
`
`TD Failed to Show That the TSE Document Is Prior Art. ...................... 32
`
`Because the TSE Translation Should be Excluded or Given No
`Weight, the Board Should Dismiss the Prior Art Ground and
`Hold that the ’056 Patent Is Not Unpatentable Based on the
`Instituted Ground. ........................................................................................... 34
`
`IV. THE COMBINATION OF TSE, TOGHER, AND SCHOTT
`CANNOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-15 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103. ................................................................................................................................. 36
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Togher Does Not Disclose Or Suggest “receiving a user input
`indicating a default quantity,” As Recited In Claim 1. ............................... 36
`
`It Would Not Have Been Obvious To Modify Togher to Use “a
`user’s last-entered quantity.” .......................................................................... 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Retaining a User’s Last-Entered Quantity in the Dialog
`(Fig. 2) Does Not Cure the Deficiency of Togher. ........................... 40
`
`A POSITA Would Not Modify Togher to Use a “user’s last-
`entered quantity” as Togher’s Normal Trade Size. ........................... 41
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`C.
`
`TSE Does Not Disclose or Suggest “an order icon” as Recited in
`Claim 5. .............................................................................................................. 43
`
`V.
`
`THE PTAB SHOULD DISMISS THE PROCEEDING BECAUSE IT
`LACKS JURISDICTION. ......................................................................................... 45
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Decision Misapplied the Technological Invention Test. ................... 49
`
`The Record Supports Finding that the Claims Recite Novel and
`Non-Obvious Technology. ............................................................................ 49
`
`The Decision Improperly Failed to Address Whether the Claims
`Solve a Technical Problem Using a Technical Solution. ........................... 51
`
`The Panel Improperly Concluded That the Claims Lack Specific
`Hardware or Software. .................................................................................... 52
`
`VI. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`A.R.M., Inc. v. Cottingham Agencies Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00671, Paper 10 (Oct. 3, 2014) ....................................................................... 33
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`453 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 34
`
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. passim
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ........................................................................................................... 11
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ........................................................................................................... 50
`
`Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.,
`333 U.S. 127 (1948) ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co.,
`2014 WL 7215193 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) ................................................................... 23
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ................................................................................... 12, 13, 18, 20
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................ 41
`
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 15-1091 (Fed. Cir.) ..................................................................................................... 46
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01525-RS, 2014 WL 7185921 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) ......................... 24
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`No. 2014-1447, 2015 WL 328222 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2015) ........................................ 42
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`Nos. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 448-JRGKNM, Dkt. 423 (E.D. Tex.
`Jan. 21, 2015) ...................................................................................................................... 24
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 43
`
`Trading Technologies Int’l v. eSpeed Inc.,
`No. 1:04-cv-05312 (N.D. Ill.) ............................................................................. 32, 33, 34
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG,
`05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) ................................................................................ 1
`
`Ultramercial v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (2014) ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corp.,
`IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 (January 21, 2015) ......................................................... passim
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corp.,
`IPR2014-01122, Paper 20 (January 21, 2015) ............................................................... 31
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corp.,
`IPR2014-01123, Paper 7 (January 21, 2015) ................................................................. 31
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18 .................................................................................................................... 45, 46
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18(d) ...................................................................................................................... 49
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................................... 33
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) ................................................................................................................ 28
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ..................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 603 ..................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 604 ..................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a) ............................................................................................. 30, 32, 34, 35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) .......................................................................................................... passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ....................................................................................................... 49, 51
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 241, 74635 (Dec. 16, 2014) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Const. art. III, § 1 ............................................................................................................ 46
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`The ’056 patent claims solve problems of prior graphical user interface devices
`
`(GUIs), in the context of computerized trading, relating to speed, accuracy and
`
`usability. The district court has recently upheld claims to similar technology as not
`
`directed to an “abstract idea.” Ex. 2200, Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, 05-cv-4811
`
`(N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) (Dkt. 1073). The assertion that the claims are directed to the
`
`abstract idea of “graphing (or displaying) bids and offers to assist a trader in making
`
`an order” is false, as the claims do not preempt graphing bids and offers and placing
`
`electronic trades without using the claimed GUI. Instead, TT’s claims are rooted in
`
`computer technology—particular features and functionality of a specialized GUI (i.e.,
`
`a graphical device/tool) that happens to be used for placing trade orders and
`
`displaying market information. As such, the claims have no issues of eligibility under §
`
`101. Moreover, because the claimed technology improves prior technology by solving
`
`problems of prior GUIs, in the context of computerized trading, relating to speed,
`
`accuracy and usability, there is no standing to challenge the patent under AIA Section
`
`18.
`
`TD’s effort to invalidate TT’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relies on a
`
`submission of a foreign language document (TSE) that failed to comply with the
`
`Board’s rules. Indeed, the translation is rife with inaccuracies resulting from the fact
`
`that the translation was a “rush” job and the translators’ unfamiliarity with the subject
`
`matter of the underlying document. Furthermore, not only has the Patent Office
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`already considered TSE, but TD has also failed to prove that TSE is prior art at all.
`
`To the contrary a district court jury previously determined that TSE is not prior art as
`
`of March 2, 2000, which is later than the ’056 patent’s priority date. Even if it were
`
`prior art and a reliable translation, TD admits to gaps in TSE’s disclosure and instead
`
`relies on a misapplication of a secondary reference also previously considered by the
`
`Patent Office (Togher) to provide elements in independent claim 1, from which claims
`
`2-15 depend. This misapplication is confirmed by an inventor on the secondary
`
`reference. Moreover, because the claimed technology improves prior technology by
`
`solving problems with prior GUIs, there is no standing to challenge the patent under
`
`AIA Section 18.
`
`For all of these reasons, the PTAB should reject TD’s grounds of
`
`unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103.
`
`II. THE CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO STATUTORY SUBJECT
`MATTER IN SATISFACTION OF 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`A.
`TT’s claims are directed to patentable subject matter in the form of technical
`
`The Claims Are Directed To Patentable Technology–A GUI Tool.
`
`features of an innovative GUI tool. The claimed GUIs are highly specialized tools
`
`used for mission-critical applications. Although inventiveness is not required to be
`
`eligible under § 101, the inventiveness in all of the claims rests upon the combination
`
`of particular features of a GUI tool, not practicing a method of doing business or data
`
`processing. While the claimed tool could be used to implement trading strategies (e.g.,
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`buy low/sell high), the claims are not directed to any trading strategy. Instead, the
`
`record is clear that the claims are directed to a specific improvement to GUIs used to
`
`conduct a trade on a computer. These types of improvements are patent eligible under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`1. The Patented Invention Solved Technical Problems with Prior
`GUIs.
`
`The claims are directed to a technological improvement. The inventor, using
`
`the conventional trading GUIs, identified a problem (“[I]t [was] often difficult for a
`
`trader to quickly assemble this information from diverse and often unrelated sources
`
`or even effectively process all of this information in order to make an informed
`
`transaction decision). Ex. 1001, 1:56-2:4. Then, he redesigned the GUI to solve that
`
`problem. Id., 2:44-46.
`
`a)
`
`The Problem with Conventional Trading GUIs: Failed
`to Effectively Visualize Information.
`
`Prior to the invention, conventional trading systems existed where “the trader
`
`only knew of the existence of the highest bid, and therefore would not know that
`
`demand for the item was increasing.” Id., 2:36-39. For example, the ’056 patent
`
`identifies the following problems with the then available GUIs:
`
`[I]t is often difficult for a trader to quickly assemble this
`information from diverse and often unrelated sources or
`even effectively process all of this information in order to
`make an
`informed
`transaction decision. From
`this
`information, and other external information, the trader
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`must attempt to determine trends in the buying or selling
`for the item in order to anticipate the market and the
`demand for a particular item.
`
`Thus, a system is needed in which trend information of
`market demand for an individual item is provided to traders
`in an intuitive format which allows traders to quickly
`interpret how market demand is changing to an item. A
`system
`is also needed which provides contextual
`information about the item or the market to the trader
`while the trader is trading on a specific item in a manner
`which allows the trader to quickly interpret the information
`and then act accordingly.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:56-2:4; see also id., 2:54-55 (discussing features “further enhancing the
`
`trader’s ability to quickly ascertain the current state of the market”); id., 2:65-66
`
`(discussing a feature that “allows the trader to quickly determine his or her relative
`
`position in the marketplace”).
`
`b)
`
`The Claimed Solution to the Problem: A New GUI
`That Improved Speed and Accuracy.
`
`To address this problem, the invention uses technical features to provide a
`
`technical solution. For example, the ’056 patent discloses a new “user interface [that]
`
`presents this information in an intuitive format, allowing the trader to make informed
`
`decisions quickly.” Id., 2:44-46. The solution includes indicators that are displayed in a
`
`particular way (i.e., relative to an axis on different portions of the computer screen) to
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`enable the user to provide inputs based on a selection of locations along the axis. Id.,
`
`1:15-17, 2:44-66. The trader is able to immediately see activity in the market, from
`
`which the trader may infer that an item may, for example, “rise in value, and can enter
`
`an order to buy for the item immediately while the value for the item still appears
`
`low.” Id., 2:32-36. This is in contrast to conventional systems, where “the trader only
`
`knew of the existence of the highest bid, and therefore would not know that demand
`
`for the item was increasing.” Id., 2:36-39.
`
`The solution also provides the ability to set a default quantity and provides 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., Fig. 3A, 8:28-40 (e.g., patent shows
`
`selecting locations corresponding to price levels along the price axis by releasing a bid
`
`or offer token at a location). The new GUI tool provides “a major advantage over
`
`conventional methods of trading in which this information is not provided
`
`concurrently, and if presented at all, is difficult to process quickly.” Id., 3:45.
`
`The ’056 patent claimed that solution by requiring an interface that provides
`
`the ability to set a default quantity and provides a plurality of locations corresponding
`
`to price levels along the price axis, which can be selected to specify a desired price for
`
`an order:
`
`receiving bid and offer information for a product from an
`electronic exchange, the bid and offer information
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`indicating a plurality of bid orders and a plurality of offer
`orders for the product;
`
`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;
`
`and sending the order for the default quantity at the
`desired price to the electronic exchange.
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1 (emphases added). An example of this improved GUI is shown in
`
`Fig. 3A:
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`
`2. The Claimed Features and Functionality of the Improved GUI
`Are An Inventive Concept, Not Conventional.
`
`Importantly, TD does not address the details of the claims. Rather, TD only
`
`generalizes the claims. Pet. at 18-20. TD ignores the substantive elements of the body
`
`of the claims, which set forth detailed requirements for the structural and functional
`
`features of the claimed GUI tool instead of merely a generic, non-particular GUI.
`
`This results in a phantom claim that ignores inventive concepts that ensure that the
`
`claim is to more than an abstract idea.
`
`Addressed Elements
`
`Resulting Phantom Claim
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The fact that the claims are directed to an improved GUI, rather than a generic
`
`GUI, shows that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and recite an inventive
`
`concept beyond an abstract idea. The claims do not recite a generic GUI because all
`
`claims of the ’056 patent recite the features of the improved GUI.1 Supra at II.A.1.
`
`None of the claims are merely directed to a method of placing an order or displaying
`
`market data. Instead, the novel and non-obvious elements of all of the claims are
`
`directed to the structure and makeup of a particular, improved GUI tool. A novel and
`
`non-obvious GUI is not conventional.
`
`As shown below, the combination of structural and functional GUI features is
`
`why the claims were allowed over the prior art. Further, the claims not only recite
`
`structural components, they also recite the make-up and placement of these features
`
`1 That the claims are written in method format is irrelevant. The method claims are
`
`directed to the inventive features of the GUI tooland require that they be used once.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`relative to each other. TD fails to address any of these claim elements, alone or in
`
`combination. For this reason alone, TD fails to meet its burden of proving the claims
`
`ineligible under § 101.
`
`a)
`
`The Claimed GUI Features Were the Inventive
`Contribution.
`
`These novel and nonobvious improvements, as argued by TT and recognized
`
`by the Office when the ’056 patent was allowed, Ex. 1002 at 168-181, 254-258, are
`
`precisely the types of technical features used in the technical field of human-computer
`
`interfaces to “build the right tool” based on “functionality as well as interface.”
`
`Ex. 2009. Thus, the claims are directed to particular structural and functional features
`
`of a GUI, not an abstract idea or generic technology. The Notice of Allowance for the
`
`’056 patent even recognizes TT as “an industry leader in creating new and novel ways
`
`of displaying information related to the electronic trading art.” Ex. 1002 at 256.
`
`This is all that is needed to be eligible under the § 101 threshold. For example,
`
`under the Alice test, claims directed to an “improve[ment to] the functioning of the
`
`computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field”
`
`are patent eligible. Alice, 135 S.Ct. 2351. Similarly, the Federal Circuit has applied Alice
`
`to find that when claims, “taken together as an ordered combination, . . . recite an
`
`invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use” of computers or the
`
`Internet, they are eligible under the § 101 threshold. DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`
`773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, because the claims are directed to an
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`improvement to a GUI, the controlling law requires that the claims be found patent
`
`eligible.
`
`3. A New GUI Is New Technology.
`The subject matter of TT’s claims, GUIs, has long been recognized as a
`
`technological field. For example, NASA includes a Human Systems Integration
`
`Division that covers several “technical areas,” including the Human Computer
`
`Interaction (HCI) Group, described as:
`
`The Ames HCI Group contributes to the development of
`measurably better NASA software through careful
`application of HCI methods. We follow an iterative process
`that consists of user research, interaction design, and
`usability evaluation. It is commonly assumed that HCI is
`exclusively focused on the interface. We are focused on the
`users and their goals in order to build the right tool which
`means that we are focused on functionality as well as
`interface.
`
`Ex. 2009. Moreover, many colleges offer science degrees in human-computer
`
`interaction. Exs. 2011-2016. Furthermore, experts who have testified regarding the
`
`claimed inventions, including experts of TD’s co-defendants in the district court, have
`
`referred to the field of the invention as a technological field. Ex. 2202, PTX 6052-56.
`
`The problems addressed by the claims are also technical because they relate to classic
`
`engineering problems of efficiency, precision and usability. Indeed, the design and
`
`function of a computer interface is often more important than the computer hardware
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`used to provide it.
`
`The patent does not merely claim implementing a known business process or
`
`generally displaying information on a generic computer. Rather, it details features and
`
`functionality of a new GUI tool. Trading is merely the application of the new GUI
`
`tool, but not what the claims are about. Thus, the claims here are analogous to claims
`
`directed to an improved instrument panel in the cockpit of an airplane. By falsely
`
`characterizing the claims as only “well-understood, routine, conventional activity,”
`
`TD is ignoring the substantive claim limitations. Pet. at 19-20. Because the claims are
`
`directed to a new GUI itself, not merely displaying something on a generic display,
`
`they are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C § 101.
`
`B. The Current 101 Framework.
`Section 101 extends patent protection to “any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`
`thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has set forth three exceptions to
`
`section 101’s scope: “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980).
`
`As the Court recently explained, the overarching concern is preventing
`
`preemption of fundamental “building blocks of human ingenuity.” Alice Corp. Pty. v.
`
`CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). Alice articulates a two-step process to
`
`determine whether claims of a patent are within the realm of patent-eligible subject
`
`matter. Id. at 2355 (relying on Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`1289 (2012)). The first step of the analysis, given the nature of the invention, is to
`
`determine whether the patent claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`Id. at 2355; see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1296-1297. If this step is met, then it must be
`
`determined whether the second step is met, i.e., to “consider the elements of each
`
`claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
`
`additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” Id. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). This second step
`
`searches for an “‘inventive concept,’ or some element or combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to ‘significantly more’ than a
`
`patent on an ineligible concept.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
`
`1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Again, the point here is
`
`to make sure the claims recite something that prevents them from impermissibly
`
`preempting an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (the claims must “do more
`
`than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea” on a generic
`
`computer); see also Ultramercial v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 722-23 (2014) (quoting
`
`Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948) and citing Alice, 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2354) (explaining that “It is not that generic computers and the Internet are not
`
`‘technology,’ but
`
`instead
`
`that
`
`they have become
`
`indispensable staples of
`
`contemporary life. Because they are the basic tools of modern-day commercial and
`
`social interaction, their use should in general remain ‘free to all men and reserved
`
`exclusively to none.’”). In contrast, claims directed to an “improve[ment to] the
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other
`
`technology or technical field” are patent eligible because they remove the
`
`preemption concern. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351 (emphasis added).
`
`C. The Claims Are Patent Eligible Because There Is No Preemption
`Concern.
`
`The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that “the concern that drives
`
`[the 101] exclusionary principle [is] one of pre-emption.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354
`
`(citing Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010); Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1923; Ass'n for
`
`Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). The claims here
`
`do not merely claim TD’s purported abstract idea, and, more importantly, do not
`
`preempt it. Accordingly, the claims are patent eligible because there is no preemption
`
`concern. As was intended by the Supreme Court in Alice, analysis of the claimed
`
`invention under the Court’s two-prong test makes this clear.
`
`1. The Claims Fail to Impermissibly Preempt Because There Is
`Evidence that Other Ways to Practice the Abstract Idea Using a
`Computer Exist.
`
`It is facially clear that TT’s claims are not directed to TD’s purported abstract
`
`idea of “presenting graphed data to a trader and accepting his or her orders.” Pet. at
`
`18. The claims, as discussed above, recite numerous, specific features defining the
`
`GUI tool whose result is the placement of a trade order. The purported abstract idea
`
`is the intended use of the claims, not what is covered by them. TT’s claims do not
`
`preempt the purported abstract idea because there are many ways to graph data for a
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`trader and accepting his or her orders without using the claimed GUI. The PTO
`
`guidance agrees that if, “when viewed as a whole, [the claim] clearly does not seek to
`
`tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it,” the analysis can stop
`
`there. 79 Fed. Reg. 241, 74635 (Dec. 16, 2014).
`
`1. Non-Infringing TD Product that Allows Presenting Graphed
`Data to a Trader and Accepting His or Her Orders.
`
`Indeed, TD’s own thinkorswim user manual (“TD Manual,” Ex. 2206)
`
`describes ways to present graphed data to a trader and accept trade orders without
`
`using the claimed GUI. For example, as illustrated below, a “Quick Chart” displays
`
`market information for the trading instrument “PHYL” and a separate “Dashboard”
`
`display provides an order ticket allowing a user to specify a quantity and play a buy or
`
`sell order.
`
`Ex. 2206 at 17. Such a configuration, while providing a way to “present[] graphed data
`
`to a trader and accept[] his or her orders,” plainly falls outside the scope of the
`
`claims—there is no combination of
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`
`displaying a plurality of bid indicators represent