`
`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.;
`IBFX, INC.; CQG, INC.; and CQGT, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices .......................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners are eligible to request a CBM review. ................................ 3
`
`Petitioners are not estopped or barred. .................................................. 4
`
`The ’056 patent is a Covered Business Method patent. ........................ 4
`
`IV. Overview of the ’056 Patent .......................................................................... 11
`
`A. Graphing bids and offers as described in the ’056 patent ...................11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The claimed graphing and user order entry .........................................11
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................12
`
`V.
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention ............................. 13
`
`VI. Claim construction ......................................................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Price axis .............................................................................................14
`
`Offer and bid indicators “representing quantity” ................................15
`
`Default .................................................................................................16
`
`Indicators, icons and tokens ................................................................18
`
`Receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an order . . . by
`selection of one of a plurality of locations . . . along the price axis ....20
`
`F.
`
`Other terms ..........................................................................................21
`
`VII. Grounds for challenging claims 1-15 of the ’056 patent ............................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`A. All applied references are prior art to the ’056 patent, which claims an
`earliest priority date of April 9, 1999 ..................................................21
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The multiple grounds of rejection under §103 are not redundant .......22
`
`The Board should not deny this Petition under § 325(d) ....................24
`
`VIII. Claims 1-15 are unpatentable under § 101 .................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers
`to help a trader make an order (Alice Step 1) ......................................27
`
`The claims do not recite an inventive concept (Alice Step 2) .............30
`
`The absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
`eligibility .............................................................................................32
`
`The claims are not rooted in computer technology .............................33
`
`TT v. CQG is not controlling precedent ..............................................36
`
`The dependent claims also recite non-statutory subject matter ..........37
`
`IX. TSE, Togher, Schott and Cooper render obvious Claims 1-15 ..................... 38
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The combination of TSE, Togher, Schott and Cooper renders obvious
`independent claim 1.............................................................................39
`
`Dependent claims 2-4 ..........................................................................50
`
`Dependent claim 5 ...............................................................................50
`
`D. Dependent claim 6 ...............................................................................52
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Dependent claim 7 ...............................................................................53
`
`Dependent claim 8 ...............................................................................54
`
`G. Dependent claim 9 ...............................................................................55
`
`H. Dependent claim 10 .............................................................................56
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Dependent claims 11 and 12 ...............................................................57
`
`Dependent claims 13 and 14 ...............................................................58
`
`K. Dependent claim 15 .............................................................................59
`
`X.
`
`Silverman, Togher, Cooper, and Hogan render obvious claims 1-15 ........... 60
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The combination of Silverman, Togher, Cooper and Hogan renders
`obvious independent claim 1 ...............................................................60
`
`Dependent claims 2-4 ..........................................................................71
`
`Dependent claim 5 ...............................................................................72
`
`D. Dependent claim 6 ...............................................................................72
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Dependent claim 7 ...............................................................................74
`
`Dependent claim 8 ...............................................................................74
`
`G. Dependent claim 9 ...............................................................................75
`
`H. Dependent claim 10 .............................................................................75
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Dependent claims 11 and 12 ...............................................................76
`
`Dependent claims 13 and 14 ...............................................................78
`
`K. Dependent claim 15 .............................................................................79
`
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 80
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 to Friesen et al. (’056 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,544, which became the
`’056 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (’056 Patent File His-
`tory”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`History of the American and NASDAQ Stock Exchanges, Business
`Reference Services, The Library of Congress
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631 to Schott (“Schott”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,809 to Hogan et al. (“Hogan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,454,104 to Steidlmayer et al. (“Steidlmayer”)
`Reuters Globex User Guide, June 1995 (“Globex”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface De-
`sign,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Edward R. Tufte, “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information,”
`1983 (“Tufte VDQI”)
`Edward R. Tufte, “Envisioning Information,” Third Edition, De-
`cember 1992 (“Tufte EI”)
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Description
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Ef-
`fective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998 (“Shnei-
`derman”)
`Sunny J. Harris, “Trading 101 – How to Trade Like a Pro,” 1996
`(“Harris”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., “Open Look™ Graphical User Interface
`Functional Specification,” November 1989 (“Open Look”)
`Valerie Quercia et al., “X Window System User’s Guide,”
`OSF/Motif 1.2 Edition, The Definitive Guides to the X Window
`System, Vol. 3, August 1993 (“X Window”)
`Richard W. Arms Jr., “Profits in Volume - Equivolume Charting,”
`1975 (“Arms”)
`Definition of “default,” The Computer Glossary, Fifth Edition, 1991
`page 175. (“Computer Glossary”)
`Definition of “default,” The Illustrated Dictionary of Microcomput-
`ers, Third Edition, 1990, page 90. (“Illustrated Dictionary”)
`Definition of “default,” Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
`Fourth Edition, 2007, page 378. (“Webster’s”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, pages 102,
`150, 174, 176, and 348 (“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
` Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, slip op. at 10 (N.D.
`Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)
`Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” pp. 44-46. (“Weiss”)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Trading Technologies Interna-
`tional, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, United
`States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Di-
`vision, filed February 9, 2012 (“SJ Opinion”)
`Vernon L. Smith, “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market
`Behavior,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LXX, No. 2,
`April 1962 (“Smith”)
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Ex. No.
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`Description
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`Declaration of Harold Abilock, CBM2014-00131
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 48, CBM2014-00131
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 38, CBM2014-00131 (“POR”)
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher Thomas, CBM2014-00131
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher Thomas, Trading Technolo-
`gies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. et al., No. 04-cv-5312
`(“eSpeed Tr.”)
`Second Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas, Trading
`Technologies Intl., Inc. v. CQG, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04811
`(“Thomas Rep.”)
`Institution Decision, Paper 19, CBM2014-00131 (“Decision”)
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc., 1985
`(“Inside Macintosh”)
`Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th
`Ed, Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`Mark J. Powers, “Starting Out in Futures Trading,” Sixth Edition,
`2001 (“Powers”)
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 32, 34
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010).......................................................................................27
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .....................................................................28
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005)......................................................................................... 9
`
`In re Abele,
`684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) ...........................................................................37
`
`In re Acad. Sci. Tech. Center,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 16, 17
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................................................14
`
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch.,
`CBM2013-00049 (P.T.A.B. 2015) ................................................................30
`
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .....................................................................63
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Causality Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (P.T.A.B. 2012) ................................................................23
`
`Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ...................................................................... 26, 32, 33
`
`Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs.,
`132 S. Ct. 740 (2012) .....................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................15
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG,
`No. 05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ....................................................................36
`
`Ultramercial v. Hulu,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................26
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`(Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015) ..............................................................................4, 29
`
`Voda v. Cordis Corp.,
`536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .....................................................................14
`
`Xianli Zhang v. United States,
`640 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .....................................................................10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................................24
`
`AIA § 18(d)(2) .........................................................................................................10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (Sept. 8, 2011) .................................................................9, 10
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................. 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ..............................................................................................16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ..........................................................................................6, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc.,
`
`TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., IBFX, Inc., CQG,
`
`Inc., and CQGT, LLC, petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) Review of all
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 (“the ’056 patent”) (Ex. 1001), owned by
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT” or "Patent Owner").
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`The ’056 patent claims are more likely than not unpatentable. In general, the
`
`’056 patent relates to a method of displaying market information to a financial
`
`trader using a computing device. The claims recite nothing more than displaying
`
`data to a trader and accepting his orders using well-known graphical user interface
`
`(“GUI”) design practices.
`
`During original prosecution, TT overcame a § 101 rejection by adding the
`
`words “by a computer.” However, the Supreme Court in Alice has made clear that
`
`simply adding a computer to an abstract idea is insufficient. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
`
`CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 (2014). Further, the ’056 patent impermissi-
`
`bly claims the abstract idea of graphing (or displaying) bids and offers to assist in
`
`making an order, which is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our
`
`system of commerce.” Alice at 2356. Indeed, the PTAB had already instituted a
`
`CBM review on the ’056 patent based on this identical abstract idea. (See Ex.
`
`1041, CBM2014-00131, Institution Decision, Paper No. 19 (“Decision”).)
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`TT also overcame prior art rejections based on paper graphs by arguing first
`
`that paper graphs are not the same as graphs displayed on a computer and second
`
`that the prior art did not teach using a default order size. But, the original examiner
`
`did not have the benefit of the prior art and evidence provided herein when allow-
`
`ing these claims. As set forth herein, claims 1-15 of the ’056 patent also invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combination of TSE, Togher, Schott, and
`
`Cooper and/or based on the combination of Silverman, Togher, Cooper, and Ho-
`
`gan. These references (described in detail below) collectively teach a GUI for facil-
`
`itating trading including displaying received bid and offer market information, dis-
`
`playing bid and offer indicators at locations corresponding to prices of the bid and
`
`offer market information, receiving a default quantity from a user to be used for a
`
`trade, and sending an order to an electronic exchange after a user selects a particu-
`
`lar price for an order. The PTAB has previously instituted CBM review on the ’056
`
`patent based on TSE, Togher, and Schott. (See Decision, pp. 19-24.) The PTAB
`
`granted a request to terminate that CBM because the parties settled days before the
`
`scheduled oral hearing.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`
`Real-Parties-in-Interest: The real parties-in-interest are IBG LLC, Interac-
`
`tive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc.,
`
`TradeStation Technologies, Inc., IBFX, Inc., CQG, Inc., and CQGT, LLC.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Related Matters: The ’056 patent is currently involved in the following
`
`proceeding that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: TT v.
`
`BGC Partners, Inc., et al., 1:10-cv-00715 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`Lead and back-up counsel: Petitioners appoint Robert E. Sokohl (Reg.
`
`No. 36,013) as its lead counsel, and Lori Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) and Jonathan
`
`M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724) as its back-up counsel, all at: STERNE, KESSLER,
`
`GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005,
`
`phone number (202) 371-2600, facsimile (202)371-2540. Petitioners consent to
`
`service by email at: rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com, lgordon-ptab@skgf.com, and
`
`jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`III. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioners and the undersigned certify that Petitioners have standing, are not
`
`estopped or barred, and that the ’056 patent is available for post-grant review.
`
`A. Petitioners are eligible to request a CBM review.
`
`Petitioners certify that they meet the eligibility requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.302 because Petitioners were sued for infringement of the ’056 patent. TT v.
`
`IBG LLC, 1:10-cv-00721 (N.D. Ill.); TT v. CQG, Inc., et al., 1:10-cv-00718 (N.D.
`
`Ill.); TT v. Tradestation Sec., Inc., 1:10-cv-00884 (N.D. Ill.) (all cases now consol-
`
`idated with 1:10-cv-00715).
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`B. Petitioners are not estopped or barred
`
`Petitioners certify that they are not estopped or barred from filing this peti-
`
`tion. Petitioners have not been a party, or a privy to a party, in any post-grant pro-
`
`ceeding of the ’056 patent, and have not filed a civil action challenging any claims
`
`of the ’056 patent.
`
`C. The ’056 patent is a Covered Business Method patent
`
`The ’056 patent, titled “User Interface for an Electronic Trading System” is
`
`a CBM patent because it is not for a technological invention, and it claims a meth-
`
`od that is financial in nature, namely, a method for trading financial instruments.
`
`1.
`
`The ’056 patent claims a covered business method
`
`A patent that claims a method for performing data processing in the practice,
`
`administration or management of a financial product or service is a CBM patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). In promulgating the final rules for CBM Review, the Office
`
`explained that that “financial product or service” should be “interpreted broadly,”
`
`encompassing patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to
`
`a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Transitional Program
`
`for CBM Patents—Definitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`Federal Circuit has upheld the Office’s interpretation. See Versata Dev. Group,
`
`Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., slip op. at 35-36 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015).
`
`The ’056 patent meets this definition. Claim 1, the sole independent claim,
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`requires receiving bid and offer information from an exchange, displaying it to a
`
`trader, receiving trader inputs for a buy or sell order (i.e., price and quantity), and
`
`sending the trader’s order to the exchange. (’056 patent, claim 1.) Each of these ac-
`
`tivities are inherently financial in nature. For example, receiving bid and offer in-
`
`formation and displaying it to a trader involves displaying market information, a
`
`financial activity. See Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd., No. CBM2013-
`
`00005, Paper No. 18 at 5 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2013) (informing a user of certain stock
`
`market events is a financial service). Similarly, receiving trader inputs for a trade
`
`and sending a trade order to an exchange involves trading on an exchange, a finan-
`
`cial activity. (See Ex. 1044, Powers, pp. 324-25.)
`
`Collectively, the claims are directed to a method for facilitating trading in an
`
`electronic exchange. Not only does the preamble admit that the collection of meth-
`
`od steps is drawn to “displaying transactional information and facilitating trading
`
`in a system,” but the patent illustrates a GUI in accordance with the claimed in-
`
`vention such as that shown in FIGs. 3A-E, 4 and 9, thereby confirming that the pa-
`
`tent is directed to financial services. Indeed, the Board has already determined that
`
`the ’056 patent meets the definition of a CBM. (Decision, p. 8.)
`
`2.
`
`The ’056 patent is not for a “technological invention”
`
`A technological invention is determined by considering whether the claimed
`
`subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvi-
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`ous over the prior art, and solves a technical problem using a technical solution. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(b). When applying the technological test, it is appropriate to con-
`
`sider the Office Patent Trial Guide which provides exemplary claim drafting tech-
`
`niques which do not render a patent a technological invention. 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the Trial Guide, (a) “[m]ere recitation of
`
`known technologies, such as computer hardware, communication or computer
`
`networks, software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, dis-
`
`play devices or databases . . .[;] (b) [r]eciting the use of known prior art technology
`
`to accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
`
`non-obvious[; and] (c) [c]ombining prior art structures to achieve the normal, ex-
`
`pected, or predictable result of that combination” are insufficient to establish a
`
`technological invention. Id. Yet, as demonstrated below, the claims—in their en-
`
`tirety—employ precisely these claim drafting techniques and therefore fail both
`
`prongs of the technological invention test under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`In short, the claims (and in particular claim 1) recite trading software that is
`
`implemented using conventional computer hardware such as personal computers,
`
`servers and networks and therefore do not include a technological feature or im-
`
`plement a technological solution. Indeed, the ’056 patent itself admits that the
`
`computing device that performs the claimed method – i.e., conventional computer
`
`functions such as “receiving,” “displaying,” and “sending” - need not be any spe-
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`cific hardware but rather can be “personal computers, terminals as part of a net-
`
`work, or any other computing device.” (’056 patent, 4:34-36.) And electronic trad-
`
`ing was well known as of the filing date, going back as far as 1971 when
`
`NASDAQ set up the first electronic stock exchange. (See Ex. 1006, “History of the
`
`American and NASDAQ Stock Exchanges,” p. 1.)
`
`Despite the conventional prior art structures identified by the claims, the re-
`
`sult is entirely normal, expected, and predictable. See 77 Fed. Reg.at 48,763-64
`
`(claims drawn to combinations of structures that achieve normal, expected, and
`
`predictable results are not technological); but cf. id. (reciting known technology to
`
`accomplish a process or method is not sufficient, even if the process or method is
`
`novel and non-obvious); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 2014-1194,
`
`2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11802, at *48-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (doubting the import of
`
`novelty and obviousness in technological invention analysis). As described in de-
`
`tail herein, the claims of the ’056 patent do not recite a technical feature that is
`
`novel or unobvious over the prior art. (See infra Sections IX and X and Román
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 92-195 (demonstrating that claims 1-15 are obvious.) Rather, they recite
`
`only well-understood, routine, and conventional steps of receiving market infor-
`
`mation, displaying it graphically to a trader, who enters buy and sell orders, and
`
`sending the trader’s orders to the exchange to be executed. Id. see also (’056 pa-
`
`tent, 1:37-41)(admitted conventional activities of an exchange).
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Moreover, the ’056 patent does not provide a technical solution to a tech-
`
`nical problem. TT alleges that the inventors recognized that trading systems suf-
`
`fered from a problem – conventional trading systems made it difficult for a trader
`
`to quickly and effectively process disparate information from multiple diverse
`
`sources in order to make an informed transaction decision. (See ’056 Patent, 1:56-
`
`2:4.) Indeed, the specification confirms that the problem facing traders was the in-
`
`ability to anticipate market movement. (’056 Patent, 1:28-33) (the “successful
`
`trader anticipates the rise or fall of the value of an item and performs his or her
`
`own transaction before the rest of the market is aware of the item’s potential gain
`
`or loss in value. Thus, anticipation of the market and specifically of the future de-
`
`mand for an item of interest is critical to the success of a trader.”). The Specifica-
`
`tion also highlights the problem and importance of informing a trader of certain
`
`market events so that the trader may use that information to facilitate trading a
`
`commodity. (Id., 2:19-26.) Yet, each of these so-called problems are business, fi-
`
`nancial, or trader problems, not technical or computer problems.
`
`Not only is the problem not technical, but the purported solution is also not
`
`technical. The ’056 patent simply provides a graphical representation of what a
`
`trader did in his mind, thus allowing the trader to better anticipate market move-
`
`ment. (’056 Patent, 1:56-60.) Importantly, TT did not design a more accurate
`
`mouse or computer that responded faster and more efficiently. Rather, TT’s non-
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`technical solution was to rearrange available market data on a GUI – albeit into a
`
`known display configuration - and allow a trader to send a trade to an electronic
`
`exchange by selecting a portion of the GUI in a well-known manner. See supra.
`
`TT’s solution may be aesthetic, but it is certainly not technical. (Decision at p. 7)
`
`(presenting data, even in an intuitive format does not “make[] a meaningful distinc-
`
`tion for purposes of determining whether a claim is to a technological invention).
`
`And, merely assisting a trader in making quick mental calculations – the purpose
`
`of a general purpose computer – is not technical in nature. See Versata, 2015 U.S.
`
`App. LEXIS 11802, at *48-49 (not technological if conventional). Thus, TT’s
`
`claims also fail the second prong of the technological invention test. Accordingly,
`
`the ’056 patent is a CBM patent eligible for CBM review based on at least claim 1.
`
`3.
`
`AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review
`
`TT has previously argued for the creation of a GUI exception to the statute
`
`based on Senator Durbin’s statement regarding “novel software tools and [GUIs].”
`
`(Ex. 1037, CBM2014-00131, POR, pp. 45-48 (“POR”) (citing 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5402 at S5428 (Sept. 8, 2011) ).) But the legislative history is irrelevant here be-
`
`cause the statute unambiguously lacks any such GUI exception. Exxon Mobil Corp.
`
`v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568 (2005) (“As we have repeatedly held,
`
`the authoritative statement is the statutory text, not the legislative history or any
`
`other extrinsic material.”); Xianli Zhang v. United States, 640 F.3d 1358, 1373
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (may refer to legislative history only if text of statute is ambigu-
`
`ous). As a result, TT’s cherry-picked quotes from the legislative history does not
`
`alter the statute’s meaning. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., 132 S. Ct. 740, 752
`
`(2012) (“[T]he views of a single legislator, even a bill’s sponsor, are not control-
`
`ling.”). Further, the Board will note that Senator Durbin was merely expressing his
`
`own opinion over the statute’s reach and his hope that the Office would “keep [it]
`
`in mind” when it crafts the technological invention exception. 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5402 at S5433.
`
`But should the Board turn to the legislative history, claim 1 is squarely with-
`
`in Senator Schumer’s definition of a CBM because he expressly listed methods for
`
`“selling and trading financial instruments and other securities” such as those
`
`claimed here as falling within the definition of a CBM patent. 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5402 at S5432 (Sep. 8, 2011). Senator Schumer further explained that the “meth-
`
`od or corresponding apparatus” in the statute’s CBM definition covers “[GUI]
`
`claims.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1360 at S1364 (Mar. 8, 2011); see also 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5402 at S5409, S5436-37 (Senator Schumer explaining that Congress is particu-
`
`larly concerned with patents relying on single- or double-clicking with a mouse).
`
`In short, the statute unambiguously gave the Office broad discretion to define the
`
`technological invention exception. AIA § 18(d)(2). And the Office did so, but
`
`without TT’s proposed GUI clause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`IV. Overview of the ’056 Patent
`
`A. Graphing bids and offers as described in the ’056 patent
`
`Bids are orders to buy a financial instrument, such as a stock, at a specific
`
`price. (Román Decl., ¶ 67.) For example, a trader might place a bid for 100 shares
`
`of XYZ stock at $50. Offers, which are sometimes called asks, are orders to sell at
`
`a specific price. (Id. at 68.) For example, another trader might place an offer to sell
`
`her 100 shares of XYZ stock at $55.
`
`FIG. 3B of the ’056 patent graphically shows bids and offers. Each bid and
`
`offer is graphed as a polygon where the side closest to the middle conveys the price
`
`as shown along the y axis, and the height (also referred to as the length) of the pol-
`
`ygon conveys the size of the order. (’056 patent, FIG. 3B.) The location on the X
`
`axis does not convey information such as time. (Román Decl., ¶ 69.) Rather, the
`
`polygons are arranged in order by price. Likewise, the width of the polygon also
`
`conveys no information to the user.
`
`B. The claimed graphing and user order entry
`
`The claims of the ’056 patent recite a method for trading that displays in-
`
`formation and accepts user inputs. Claim 1 recites receiving bid and offer infor-
`
`mation from an electronic exchange, displaying it, receiving an order with a default
`
`quantity from a u