`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Patent 7,533,056
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`The ’056 patent claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea. ................................ 2 
`
`I. 
`
`A.  Graphically displaying bids and offers to assist traders in placing
`orders is abstract. ................................................................................... 3 
`
`B. 
`
`The claims of the ’056 do not transform the abstract concept into
`an inventive concept. ............................................................................. 8 
`
`II. 
`
`Claim construction. ........................................................................................ 11 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`“price axis” .......................................................................................... 11 
`
`“order icon” ......................................................................................... 12 
`
`No other terms need to be construed. .................................................. 12 
`
`III.  The ’056 claims are obvious over the TSE combination. ............................. 12 
`
`A. 
`
`TSE is a prior art printed publication. ................................................. 13 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Unrebutted evidence establishes that TSE was actually
`disseminated to the interested public in August 1998. ............. 13 
`
`TSE was otherwise publicly available based on its wide,
`unrestricted distribution to the interested public. ..................... 16 
`
`B. 
`
`TT’s attempt to swear behind TSE fails because TT fails to
`establish conception, diligence, and actual reduction to practice. ...... 17 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`TT’s “Trading Game Design” fails to establish a conception
`because it doesn’t teach “displaying...indicators representing
`quantity.” ................................................................................... 17 
`
`TT fails to establish that the invention was diligently
`reduced to practice because it fails to account for multiple,
`significant gaps during the critical period. ................................ 18 
`
`3. 
`
`TT fails to establish actual reduction to practice. ..................... 20 
`
`C. 
`
`The TSE combination renders claims 1-15 obvious. .......................... 23 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`TT creates a conventional wisdom straw-man just to knock
`it down in an attempt to avoid the undisputed teachings of
`TSE ............................................................................................ 23 
`
`TSE teaches or suggests the claimed “order icon” of claims
`5-7. ............................................................................................ 24 
`
`The combination of TSE, Togher, and Schott teaches or
`suggests claims 6. ...................................................................... 25 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`IV.  The ’056 patent claims are obvious over the Silverman combination. ......... 26 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Silverman teaches or suggests a GUI to a POSA ................................ 26 
`
`Silverman discloses a price axis. ......................................................... 27 
`
`The combination of Silverman, Togher, Cooper, and Hogan
`discloses an order icon as recited in claims 5-7. ................................. 28 
`
`V. 
`
`TT hints at but fails to demonstrate secondary considerations. .................... 28 
`
`VI.  The ’056 patent is eligible for CBM review. ................................................. 29 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................... 1, 3, 7, 8, 9
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Appeal No. 15-1763 (Fed.Cir. June 27, 2016)....................................................... 5, 9
`
`Burns v. Curtis,
`172 F.2d 588 (CCPA 1949) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`CLS Bank Intl. v. Alice Corp,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed.Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 6
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed.Cir. 1988) ................................................................................. 16
`
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc.,
`291 F.3d 1317 (Fed.Cir. 2002) ................................................................................. 14
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
`154 F.3d 1321 (Fed.Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 20
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 4, 6
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 5
`
`Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 10
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A.,
`Appeal No. 2015-1778 (Fed.Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) .............................................. 4, 6, 10
`
`Enfish ,LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 3, 5, 6
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`
`Gould v. Schawlow,
`363 F.2d 908 (CCPA 1966) ................................................................................. 4, 18
`
`Griffith v. Kanamuru,
`816 F.2d 624 (Fed.Cir. 1987) ................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Acad. Sci. Tech. Center,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed.Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 11
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir. 1999) ................................................................................. 11
`
`In re McIntosh,
`230 F.2d 615 (CCPA 1956) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`In re Mulder,
`716 F.2d 1542 (Fed.Cir. 1983) ................................................................................. 19
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed.Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Kridl v. McCormick,
`105 F.3d 1446 (Fed.Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 18
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) .......................................................................................... 2, 26
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 16
`
`LendingTree LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
`--F.3d-- (Fed.Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Surfacst, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00292, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) ............................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Svcs.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ............................................................................... 5, 8
`
`Powell v. Poupitch,
`167 F.2d 514 (1948) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Rines v. Morgan,
`250 F.2d 365 (Fed.Cir. 1957) ................................................................................... 20
`
`SciMed Life Sys v. Advanced Cardiovascular,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 11
`
`TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C.,
` --F.3d-- (Fed.Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 10
`
`Vivid Techs. v. Amer. Science,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed.Cir. 2000) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 16
`
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit List
`
`1003
`
`Description
`Ex. No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 to Friesen et al. (’056 patent”)
`1002 File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,544, which became the ’056
`patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (’056 Patent File History”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide,”
`Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`1004 Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`1005 Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`1006 History of the American and NASDAQ Stock Exchanges, Business
`Reference Services, The Library of Congress
`1007 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”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631 to Schott (“Schott”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,414,809 to Hogan et al. (“Hogan”)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,454,104 to Steidlmayer et al. (“Steidlmayer”)
`1014 Reuters Globex User Guide, June 1995 (“Globex”)
`1015 Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design,”
`First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`1016 Edward R. Tufte, “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information,”
`1983 (“Tufte VDQI”)
`1017 Edward R. Tufte, “Envisioning Information,” Third Edition, December
`1992 (“Tufte EI”)
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Description
`Ex. No.
`1018 Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective
`Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998 (“Shneiderman”)
`1019 Sunny J. Harris, “Trading 101 – How to Trade Like a Pro,” 1996
`(“Harris”)
`1020 Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`1021 Sun Microsystems, Inc., “Open Look™ Graphical User Interface
`Functional Specification,” November 1989 (“Open Look”)
`1022 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”)
`1023 Richard W. Arms Jr., “Profits in Volume - Equivolume Charting,” 1975
`(“Arms”)
`1024 Definition of “default,” The Computer Glossary, Fifth Edition, 1991 page
`175. (“Computer Glossary”)
`1025 Definition of “default,” The Illustrated Dictionary of Microcomputers,
`Third Edition, 1990, page 90. (“Illustrated Dictionary”)
`1026 Definition of “default,” Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
`Fourth Edition, 2007, page 378. (“Webster’s”)
`1027 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)
`1029 Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” pp. 44-46. (“Weiss”)
`1030 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Trading Technologies International,
`Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, United States
`District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, filed
`February 9, 2012 (“SJ Opinion”)
`1031 Vernon L. Smith, “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market
`Behavior,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LXX, No. 2, April
`1962 (“Smith”)
`1032 Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`1033 Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`
`1028
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`1041
`1042
`
`Description
`Ex. No.
`1034 List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`1035 Declaration of Harold Abilock, CBM2014-00131
`1036 Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 48, CBM2014-00131
`1037 Patent Owner Response, Paper 38, CBM2014-00131 (“POR”)
`1038 Transcript of Deposition of Christopher Thomas, CBM2014-00131
`1039 Transcript of Deposition of Christopher Thomas, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. et al., No. 04-cv-5312 (“eSpeed Tr.”)
`1040 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”)
`1043 Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed,
`Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`1044 Mark J. Powers, “Starting Out in Futures Trading,” Sixth Edition, 2001
`(“Powers”)
`1045 Settlement Agreement (Board Only)
`1046 Transcript of teleconference, March 23, 2016
`1047 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data, United States Patent and
`Trademark Office, September 30, 2014
`1048 Ex Parte Reexamination Dashboard, September 2012
`1049 Declaration of Adam Kessel in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`1050 Email Correspondence of April 12-13, 2016
`1051 Transcript of Teleconference, May 2, 2016
`1052 Transcript of Teleconference, June 6, 2016
`1053 Declaration of Kendyl A. Román from CBM2016-00031
`1054 Deposition Transcript of Richard Friesen
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Description
`Ex. No.
`1055 Deposition Transcript of Peter C. Hart
`1056 Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.)
`1057 Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.)
`1058 Cleveland, “The Elements of Graphing Data," 1994”
`1059 Deposition Transcript of Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`1060 Deposition Transcript of Christopher H. Thomas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`The ’056 patent fails to meet the requirements for patentability because the
`
`claims fail to describe patentable subject-matter and because that subject-matter
`
`describes nothing more than obvious and predictable combination of known
`
`elements in the art.
`
`The ’056 patent’s first critical failing is that it doesn’t recite patent-eligible
`
`subject matter under Alice and its progeny. It describes a GUI that allows a trader
`
`to visualize data to “quickly interpret how market demand it changing for an item.”
`
`’056, 1:65-67. It then claims the abstract ideas of displaying market data to assist
`
`traders in placing an order. The fact that the display is graphic (as opposed to text
`
`based) and that method is performed on a computer doesn’t save the claims. The
`
`display of market data and simply allowing a user to send a trade based on user
`
`input doesn’t qualify as patent-eligible subject matter. This is confirmed under
`
`Alice Step 2 because the claim’s recitation of a conventional arrangement of data
`
`using conventional components confers little if anything to this abstract idea.
`
`The ’056 patent’s second critical failing is that the claims are unequivocally
`
`obvious in light of the TSE or Silverman grounds. TT first tries to assail the prior
`
`art status of TSE on various grounds. Although it burdened the Board, the
`
`Petitioners, and the Tokyo Stock Exchange with its efforts to obtain the deposition
`
`of Mr. Kawashima, it didn’t bother to question Mr. Kawashima about Petitioners’
`
`evidence that more than 200 people had access to TSE. Likewise, its efforts to
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`antedate TSE also fall short because, among other things, TSE offered insufficient
`
`evidence of diligence and an actual reduction to practice.
`
`Finally, TT tries to salvage the patentability of its claims by arguing that its
`
`GUI went against the “conventional wisdom.” The correct issue before the Board
`
`is the obviousness of the claims over the prior art in the instituted grounds, not the
`
`obviousness over “conventional wisdom.” On that issue, TT’s arguments falter as
`
`it offers no legitimate basis to distinguish the claims over TSE. TT’s arguments
`
`about Silverman are equally without merit. It first argues that Silverman doesn’t
`
`teach a “price axis,” but this argument rests on an unreasonably narrow
`
`construction unsupported by the claims or specification. It next argues that the
`
`drawings in Silverman do not show a GUI. But under KSR, the question is what
`
`Silverman teaches or suggests, not merely what its drawings depict. And the
`
`overwhelming evidence of record shows that Silverman would suggest to a POSA
`
`how to design a GUI for trading on an electronic exchange.
`
`For the reasons set forth below and in the Petition, the claims of the ’056
`
`patent should be canceled.
`
`I.
`
`The ’056 patent claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`The ’056 patent fails to claim patent-eligible subject-matter. (“Petition”), 27-
`
`37; Paper23 (“Decision”), 11-15, 31.) TT responds by first arguing that the claims
`
`describe “the structure, make-up, and functionality of an innovative graphical user
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`interface tool” rather than an abstract idea. (Paper81 (“POR”), 12.) TT next argues
`
`that the claim elements together recite an inventive concept transforming the nature
`
`of the claims into a patent-eligible subject matter, satisfying part two of Alice. Both
`
`of these arguments fail.
`
`A. Graphically displaying bids and offers to assist traders in placing
`orders is abstract.
`
`The ’056 patent claims are directed to graphing (or displaying) bids and
`
`offers to assist a trader to make an order. (Petition, 27-29.) They aren’t limited to
`
`any particular method or any particular GUI. Reduced to their base, the claims
`
`amount to nothing more than organizing trade information in a graphical format.
`
`TT contends that the claims aren’t abstract because they recite “the structure,
`
`make-up, and functionality” of an innovative GUI tool. (POR, 13-21.) This
`
`description is inaccurate, an overgeneralization, and “untethered from the language
`
`of the claims.” Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`Claim 1 simply recites method steps for displaying received transactional
`
`information, receiving a user input including a default quantity and desired price
`
`for an order, and “sending the order for the default quantity at the desired price to
`
`the electronic exchange.” (’056, 14:19-20.) The claims do not recite a “tool” or any
`
`other structure for performing the functions of “displaying,” “receiving,” and
`
`“sending.” And the claimed method doesn’t improve a computer or address any
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`technological problems.1 These claims—which merely rearrange and display
`
`information—aren’t patentable. See Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A.,
`
`Appeal No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 9 (Fed.Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); CyberSource Corp. v.
`
`Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2011).
`
`The CAFC’s recent decision in Electric Power compels the conclusion that
`
`the ’056 claims recite ineligible subject-matter. There, the CAFC found the claims-
`
`at-issue failed §101 because they did “not go beyond requiring the collection,
`
`analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those
`
`functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for
`
`performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer
`
`and network technology.” Electric Power, slip op. at 2. The ’056 claims similarly
`
`recite the displaying market information without limiting them to any technical
`
`means. (See ’056, 4:34-36.)
`
`TT accuses Petitioner and the Board of “overgeneralizing” the ’056 claims.
`
`(POR, 11-13.) However, the CAFC regularly articulates a claim’s abstract ideas in
`
`succinct terms without explicitly giving effect to every limitation when evaluating
`
`
`1 The Board should give no weight to TT’s experts, Dr. Olsen and Mr.
`
`Gould-Bear, because they didn’t analyze or opine on the ’056 patent. (Ex.1059, 20;
`
`Ex.1060, 40-4.)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. See, Lending Tree LLC v.
`
`Zillow, Inc., --F.3d-- (Fed.Cir. 2016) (reducing a method claim of 11 steps (361
`
`words) to a two-word abstract idea: “coordinating loans”); Mortgage Grader, Inc.
`
`v. First Choice Loan Svcs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed.Cir. 2016) (“anonymous loan
`
`shopping”); BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Appeal No. 15-
`
`1763, slip. op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) (“filtering content”).
`
`TT also argues that the claims “improve[] the functioning of the computer.”
`
`(POR, 13.) This argument falls flat. The claimed steps of “displaying”
`
`transactional information, “receiving” user input, and “sending the order for the
`
`default quantity” in no way make the computer run faster, more efficiently, use less
`
`energy, or operate in any other advantageous manner. Thomas admits as much.
`
`(Ex. 1059, 57:18-58:13; Ex. 1060, 248, 263-269.)
`
`The CAFC decisions in DDR and Enfish are inapposite. In both cases, the
`
`claimed methods sought to solve problems concerning the inner workings of a
`
`computer or network. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
`
`1257 (Fed.Cir. 2014) (“[T]he claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`
`computer networks.”); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339 (claims directed to “a specific type
`
`of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data
`
`in memory”). That isn’t the case with the ’056 patent, which sought to solve the
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`problem of human traders’ inability to anticipate market movement. (’056, 1:28-
`
`33) The ’056 patent’s solution—displaying market data, receiving user input and
`
`sending a trade to an exchange—doesn’t impact the computer whatsoever.
`
`TT argues that the claims are “undoubtedly not abstract” and analogize its
`
`claims to physical entities. (POR, 15-16.) This argument also fails for several
`
`reasons. First, TT’s claims do not recite a “physical entity,” or even a “GUI,” but
`
`rather a “method...for displaying transactional information.” Merely rearranging
`
`and displaying information isn’t patent eligible. Electric Power, slip op. at 9;
`
`CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375. Second, TT doesn’t even attempt to explain how
`
`an arrangement of transactional data on a trading screen is “physical.” Unlike
`
`Enfish, where the claim in question was directed at something physical, namely “a
`
`data storage and retrieval system,” TT’s claims are directed at method steps––
`
`simply displaying transactional information in a particular format and then sending
`
`an order in response to user input. Again, the inner workings of the computer are
`
`unaffected.
`
`The essence of TT’s argument is that its claims aren’t abstract because they
`
`implicate a combination of software and hardware. Put another way, TT tries to
`
`argue that its claimed method turns a general purpose computer into a specialized
`
`one. But this no longer passes muster under §101. CLS Bank Intl. v. Alice Corp,
`
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed.Cir. 2013) (en banc) (Judge Lourie in a concurring opinion
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`discussing the Alappat fallacy); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive,
`
`L.L.C., --F.3d-- (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that claims drawn to methods and
`
`systems for recording and administering digital images to be ineligible subject
`
`matter even though they recited a telephone and a server).
`
`TT further argues that its claims aren’t abstract because they are “not
`
`directed to a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice.” (POR,
`
`16-20.) But TT conveniently overlooks the express language of the ’056 patent,
`
`which explains that “[t]he present invention is related generally...to the field of
`
`graphical user interfaces for electronic trading systems.” (’056, 1:15-17.)
`
`Electronic trading is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our
`
`system of commerce,” and is an abstract idea similar to those courts have
`
`repeatedly held abstract and ineligible. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356. TT also asserts
`
`that improvements to the GUI tool “do not attempt to claim trading.” (POR, 17.)
`
`But this is also erroneous as claim 1 itself recites “sending the order...to the
`
`electronic exchange.” Thus, the steps of the claims reflect abstract ideas about the
`
`organization of information for use in a fundamental economic practice.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370
`
`(Fed.Cir. 2015) (process performed by a machine to improve speed and efficiency
`
`“does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`TT attempts to distinguish its GUI from those found to be unpatentable in
`
`Mortgage Grader and Capital One. (POR, 19.) Contrary to TT’s assertion, the
`
`interfaces at issue in Capital One and Mortgage Grader were recited with as much
`
`specificity as the ’056. For example, in Capital One the relevant claim recited “an
`
`interactive interface” configured to dynamically display certain information (i.e.,
`
`navigation data), to a user. 792 F.3d at 1367. Similarly, the ‘056 claims a method
`
`for “displaying” information (i.e., bids/offers), to the user. In Mortgage Grader the
`
`claim at issue recited “a first interface” and “a second interface,” the latter of
`
`which included separate components and a display region (“borrower grading
`
`module,” display of “total cost” of each loan). Just like the ’056, Mortgage Grader
`
`and Capital One claimed GUIs that identified what information the interface was
`
`to display or functionality to include, but didn’t specify how the computer was to
`
`create the interface. TT’s claims are abstract and thus patent-ineligible for the same
`
`reasons.
`
`B.
`
`The claims of the ’056 do not transform the abstract concept into
`an inventive concept.
`TT argues that its claims are patentable under Alice Step 2 because “they
`
`recite an inventive concept.” (POR, 16.) But TT completely fails to articulate ––
`
`either taking the claim limitations individually or as an ordered combination ––
`
`exactly what that “inventive concept” is. This is fatal to a step-2 analysis. Rather,
`
`the POR speaks only in generalities without explaining how they apply to TT’s
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`claims. The closest TT comes to articulating an inventive concept is to assert that
`
`the “claims recite structural details of a specific GUI that functions differently
`
`from prior art GUIs to solve GUI-centric problems.” (POR, 24.) This vague
`
`statement of general functionality is insufficient to qualify under Alice Step 2. Cf.
`
`BASCOM, slip op. at 6 (“The inventive concept described and claimed in the ‘606
`
`patent is the installation of a filtering tool as a specific location, remote from the
`
`end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.”).
`
`TT also alleges that the claims of the ’056 patent “recite significantly more”
`
`than an abstract idea because they specify “the GUI features and functionality with
`
`greater detail,” because the “claimed combination of GUI features and
`
`functionality is the solution rather than pre-solution or post-solution activity” and
`
`because “there is no evidence that the claimed combination of GUI functionality
`
`was routine and conventional.” (POR, pp. 23.) TT is wrong on all three counts.
`
`First, the claims are far from specific in their recitation of features. Rather,
`
`they simply recite broad method steps of displaying, receiving, and sending
`
`information. (’056, 13:60-16:20.) Absent from the claims is any description as to
`
`how any of the steps are to be accomplished.
`
`Second, the claims here merely organize information and recite nothing
`
`more than conventional elements. They solve nothing. “Merely selecting
`
`information by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display” doesn’t
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`render a claim patent eligible. Electric Power, slip op. at 9. Likewise, merely
`
`“organizing information through mathematical correlations” and “manipulat[ing]
`
`existing information to generate additional information” that isn’t tied to any
`
`specific processor also isn’t patent-eligible. Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Elec. for
`
`Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Third, even if the claims recited a novel, groundbreaking, brilliant
`
`arrangement of elements, this may be insufficient to impart patent eligibility.
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he
`
`addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea [doesn’t]
`
`necessarily turn[] an abstraction into something concrete.”); Ass’n for Molecular
`
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013)
`
`(“groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery doesn’t by itself satisfy
`
`the §101 inquiry”).
`
`In short, where, as here, the claims merely “defin[e] a desirable information-
`
`based result an d[are] not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, [they]
`
`fail under §101.” Electric Power, slip. op. at 1. Accordingly, Petitioners
`
`respectfully request that the Board find that claims 1-28 are patent ineligible.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`II. Claim construction.
`A.
` “price axis”
`The Board properly construed “price axis.” TT proposes a narrower
`
`construction, but commits “one of the cardinal sins of patent law––reading a
`
`limitation from the written description into claims.” SciMed Life Sys v. Advanced
`
`Cardiovascular, 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Specifically, TT attempts to
`
`construe this term based on the GUIs depicted in Figures 3A-3C and 4. (POR, 6.)
`
`However, those figures are simply embodiments and do not provide a clear
`
`disavowal of claim scope. (’056, 4:3-9 (clearly stating that Figures. 3A-3C and 4
`
`are “screen shots illustrating an embodiment...in accordance with the present
`
`invention”).) In re Acad. Sci. Tech. Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2004)(disavowal requires “expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope”).
`
`Additionally, there is nothing in the specification that amounts to a manifest
`
`exclusion of the BRI for “price axis.” TT also points to the file history. While the
`
`file history may be relevant, the Board’s construction “cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification and the record evidence,” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288
`
`(Fed.Cir. 2011), and “must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art
`
`would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.Cir. 1999). Moreover, it
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`is common for axes to have “gaps,” e.g., sc