Page 1 of 125
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2174
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00181
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,4l 1
`
`I. Qualifications
`
`I.
`
`I, Dan R. Olsen .Ir., Ph.D., am a resident of Orem, Utah and have more
`
`than 35 years of experience in computer science and human—cornputer interaction
`
`(I-ICI). I hold a doctorate in Computing and Information from the University of
`
`Pennsylvania. For 3 Vi years I was an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at
`
`Arizona State University. I then served for 30 years on the faculty of Brigham
`
`Young Un.iversity retiring as a full professor in 2015. During that time at BYU, I
`
`also served as the chair of the Department of Computer Science. I took leave fi'om
`
`BYU in 1996 to become the founding director of the Human Computer Interaction
`
`Institute in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. I
`
`returned to BYU in 1998. I am currently the CEO of a software startup in
`
`educational technology (SparxTeq, Inc).
`
`2.
`
`During the course ofmy academic career, I authored over 70 papers in
`
`the field of computer science. The topics on which I have published papers are:
`
`-
`
`User Interface Management Systems
`
`Syntactic representations of user interfaces
`
`Multi-user interaction across networks
`
`Induction of interaction behavior from pictures
`
`Novel interaction techniques using speech and laser pointers
`
`Interactive machine learning
`
`Page 2 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015—00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`Interactive robotics
`
`Interactive television
`
`3 .
`
`I currently hold 4 patents in human-computer interaction. I have
`
`authored 3 textbooks on the techniques of software design for human-computer
`
`interaction.
`
`4.
`
`I have had extensive involvement in professional societies, such as the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the premiere society in computing.
`
`I have served in many offices of ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer
`
`Human Interaction (SIGCI-II) and currently serve as its treasurer. I have been
`
`conference chair of CH], which is the premier conference in Computer Human
`
`Interaction. I was the founding editor of ACM’s Transactions on Computer Human
`
`Interaction. I was a co-founder and active leader for the conference on User
`
`Interface Software and Technology (UIST) for the past 29 years. I have also served
`
`at the governor’s request on the Utah Science, Technology and Research (USTAR)
`
`board, which oversees and fimds state economic development efforts in
`
`technology.
`
`5.
`
`I twice received best paper awards in intelligent user interfaces. In
`
`2004, I was appointed to the CHI Academy for international excellence in
`
`Computer Human Interaction research. In 2007, I was recognized as one of ACM’s
`
`Page 3 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l5-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`Fellows for research in computer science and in 2012 received the CHI Lifetime
`
`Research Award, which is the highest award in Computer Human Interaction.
`
`II. Graphical User Interfaces and the ‘411 Patent
`
`6.
`
`Attorneys for the Patent Holder have explained to me that U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,676,411 (“the ‘411 patent”) has been challenged as a Covered Business
`
`Method (CBM) patent. I have been asked to review the nature of the invention in
`
`the ‘411 patent. As explained below, it is my opinion that the ‘4l1 patent claims a
`
`technological invention because the claimed invention provides a technical
`
`improvement to prior graphical user interfaces.
`
`III. Historical context
`
`7.
`
`In discussing how graphical user interfaces are a technology with
`
`specific technical problems, I would first like to refer to two very old patents
`
`involving earlier mechanical technologies. I will use these two patents to illustrate
`
`two key pieces of technical knowledge that are used widely in graphical user
`
`interface (GUI) technology.
`
`Page 4 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM201S—001 81
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,41 1
`
`annulus lemma we ruinous
`711-4 50th :0. ma
`
`3 am:-mun 1
`
`Figure 1 — Speedometer in the Steering Wheel.
`
`IV.
`
`Simplification of perception — US patent 1,692,601
`
`8.
`
`In 1928, U.S. patent 1,692,601 was issued for an automobile
`
`speedometer that was mounted in the center of the steering wheel. This patent
`
`claims the ability to perceive an automobi1e’s speed. It was not for the sensor for
`
`measuring speed (Which was well known at the time). It was not for the concept of
`
`displaying speed in a meter (which was also well known). The key claim was as
`
`follows:
`
`first, to provide a steering control means -for vehicles on which is
`mounted a speedometer whereby the speed of the vehicle may be
`readily determined by merely dropping the vision slightly to the
`middle portion of the steering wheel which is substantially in line with
`the line of vision of the driver and as close to the eyes of the driver as
`possible, thus determining the speed of the vehicle with least danger
`to the driver and other occupants
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`9.
`
`This patent’s key contribution was that it placed the speedometer in
`
`the center of the steering Wheel Where it was easier for the driver to perceive. This
`
`Was not awarded for the esthetics or appearance ofthat speedometer placement. It
`
`was the arrangement of the components of the technology for easiest human
`
`perception that was the key to this patent. It will be shown in this report that the
`
`‘411 patent claims constructing a GUI to display information in particular
`
`locations to improve the interface between man and machine by improving the
`
`user‘s perception of the relevant information, with bits and pixels comprising the
`
`GUI elements rather than cables, shafts and gears.
`
`V. Reduction of human effort - US 714,878
`
`10.
`
`In 1902, U.S. patent 714,878 was issued for a new steering
`
`mechanism. The claim was not for steering, which was well known, and not for the
`
`gears, shafts and motive power that were used. The essential claim of this patent. is
`
`as follows:
`
`This invention relates to improvements in motor-vehicles or
`automobiles, and more particularly to the class of such vehicles
`wherein the front Wheels are both the driven and the steering wheels;
`and the invent—ion more especially pertains to the mechanisms and
`controlling appliances whereby the motor may be made available for
`the propulsion ofthe vehicle through the front steering wheels,
`whereby the motor may be employed to swing the steering-wheels to
`steer, whereby the motor may be simultaneously caused to both drive
`
`Page 6 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM201 5-00 181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,111 1
`
`and steer, and whereby the motor may only drive the steering-wheels,
`the steering being operated manually.
`
`The improved mechanism is especially useful on large and heavy
`motor wagons or trucks in which, especially at the time of starting the
`same, considerable power is necessary to change the relative position
`of the wheels under the body.
`
`1 1. By this time the steering of vehicles was well known. The specific
`
`technical problem that was addressed was that with very heavy vehicles the power
`
`required to turn the steering wheels was beyond the capacity of normal human
`
`beings. They were simply not strong enough. In this patent, a mechanism is
`
`described for using power from the motor to perform the task that a human could
`
`not do. As explained in this report, the ‘411 patent, rather than using a motor to
`
`reduce human effort, describes a way of constructing a GUI to allow a human to
`
`perceive and enter information in a way that a human previously could not. Bits
`
`and pixels comprising GUI components have replaced gears, motors and shafts but
`
`again human capacity to control and interface with a machine has still been
`
`enhanced i.n a novel way.
`
`VI. Graphical User Interface Technology
`
`12. One of the questions at issue in the Petitioner’s arguments is whether
`
`or not GU15 constitute a technology. User interface technology is the subject of
`
`study at institutions such as MIT-Media Lab, CMU-HCI Institute in their School of
`
`Computer Science, Stanford, UC-Berkeley, University of Washington and Georgia
`
`Page 7 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`Tech. All ofthese highly technical institutions have strong research faculty and
`
`educational programs in human-computer interaction. The goals of HCI research
`
`are to invent new Ways for people to interact with computers. This is not a new
`
`field of study, but rather a subset of man-machine interface design. Indeed, HCI
`
`has adopted a number ofterms from its mechanical parent. For example, buttons,
`
`sliders, exist in both fields for study, and just as changes to these features may
`
`provide an improvement in a mechanical device, improving the equivalent features
`
`in a GUI allows a computer to function better or even in ways that were not
`
`previously conceived. For example, the various GUIS on the iPhone transform it
`
`into a phone, compass, calculator, and so on. Without these GUIs, the iPhone is a
`
`useless handheld computer. Indeed, the iPhone itself uses HCI design, for
`
`example, by using slide to unlock to access the phone to replace a mechanical lock.
`
`13.
`
`Two common measures of success in HCI research are speed -and
`
`accuracy. Learnability is also a common success metric. The ease with which
`
`someone can master a user interface is very important. Although esthetics do come
`
`into play when marketing some types of products (e.g., retail products), HCI
`
`researchers generally ignore this aspect and focus on making a user interface more
`
`effective rather than just prettier.
`
`14. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines technology as “the practical
`
`application of knowledge, especially in a particular area.” At issue then is the
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l5-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,111 1
`
`knowledge, or scientific principles, that cause the invention claimed in the ‘411
`
`patent to work better than previous solutions. In my opinion, at least two basic GUI
`
`principles cause users to perceive the claimed GUI as an improvement over prior
`
`GU1s, namely: human visual search, and optimizing human effort. This section of
`
`the report includes a light introduction to these principles so that they can be
`
`understood with respect to the claims of the ‘411 patent.
`
`V11. GUI Architecture
`
`15.
`
`In the case of the ‘411 patent, the claims identify the specific
`
`architecture/make-up, functionality, and structural components, including order-
`
`entry regions allowing for user interaction, and display regions providing
`
`information about the particular commodity market in which trades are occurring.
`
`The design ofthis presentation is absolutely critical to the user’s ability to correctly
`
`perceive the state of the interaction information. There are many possibilities for
`
`the design of the GUI architecture and they will vary widely in how rapidly and
`
`accurately the user can perceive information the user is trying to perceive. The
`
`claims of the ‘411 patent describe how to construct a GUI with a very specific and
`
`concrete arrangement of the presentation of the market information at particular
`
`locations so that the inside market (the current highest bid price and current lowest
`
`ask price) moves relative to a price axis so as to facilitate the user’s (trader)
`
`"perception of the market.
`
`Page 9 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`16.
`
`The ‘411 claims describe a particular way of constructing a GUI with
`
`areas in an order entry region at particular locations to allow for order entry which
`
`requires less effort of the user than before and provides greater accuracy without
`
`sacrificing speed versus the disclosed conventional screens. The ’411 patent claims
`
`a way of constructing a GUI with a specific structure and make-up for presenting
`
`information and that permits a specific way in which users can enter data and cause
`
`messages to be sent, which in this case is data parameters of trade orders and
`
`messages that represent trade orders. The ‘41 1 patent claims provide a GUI that a
`
`user can see, feel and interact with no differently than a mechanical device. The
`
`‘411 claims provide technical solutions to the technical problems ofus.er’s
`
`perception of market data and entry of data.
`
`17.
`
`Innovation in human control ofprocesses has a long patent history.
`
`US Patent 3,018,661 issued in 195 7 is for an aviation dispiay. The goal of this
`
`display is as follows:
`
`It is an object of the present invention to provide an
`
`aircraft instrument constructed to facilitate the control of
`
`an aircraft simultaneously in pitch and roll by a human
`
`pilot and which preferably is combined with means to
`
`display the pitch and roll attitude of the aircraft to give a
`
`readily appreciated indication of the actual attitude of the
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`US. Patent 7,676,411
`
`aircraft and the action which is required to attain the
`
`desired flight path.
`
`And the patent claimed providing that particular way of presenting information as
`
`follows:
`
`1. An aircraft instrument comprising means to define a
`
`Viewing aperture, a first index supported for movement
`
`Within the aperture, means within the aperture to define a
`
`datum position for the first index, driving means
`
`connected to the first index, means to control the driving
`
`means in accordance with the component of the normal
`
`plane absolute acceleration of the aircraft in direction of
`
`its Z axis so that the displacement of the first index from
`
`the said datum position is proportional to the said
`
`component of the normal plane absolute acceleration of
`
`the aircraft, a further index supported for movement
`
`within the aperture and means to displace the further
`
`index in relation to the said datum position in accordance
`
`with a demanded value, both as to magnitude and
`
`direction of the normal plane absolute acceleration, said
`
`demanded Value being that required if some desired flight
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015—0Ol81
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`path is to be achieved and a maneuver of the aircrafi in
`
`bank and pitch to superpose the first index and further
`
`index thus resulting in the attainment of the demanded
`
`normal plane acceleration and the desired flight path,
`
`neglecting any components of the normal plane absolute
`
`acceleration in the direction of the transverse axis of the
`
`18.
`
`The innovation in this aviation patent relies upon the pilot’s ability to
`
`perceive his current flight state in a way that will more easily allow him to control
`
`the plane. The ‘4l1 patent innovates in a similar way using mouse, keyboard and
`
`screen rather than gears and dials.
`
`Page 12 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBMZOIS-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`VII1. Human factors
`
`19.
`
`This is not the place for a complete discussion of the human factors
`
`principles that impact the design of interfaces between man and machine.
`
`However, there are three that are instructive in this case. They are: short term
`
`memory, foveated perception and expressive leverage.
`
`A. Seven +/- two
`
`20. A great deal of what we do when we work depends upon our short-
`
`term memory. Short term memory consists of the knowledge we need right now
`
`for the task at hand. It has been shown that the number of concepts that can be held
`
`in short term memory is between 5 and 9, which is described as the “seven plus or
`
`minus two” rule. When the amount of information required for a task exceeds these
`
`limits we forget something to make room for a new piece of information. This is
`
`Why talking with someone will cause us to forget a phone number that we just
`
`looked up. The new information from talking pushes out the phone number we just
`
`saw. In commodity trading, driving a car, or piloting aircraft there are many pieces
`
`of information that must be considered rapidly and simultaneously to perform
`
`successfully.
`
`B. Foveated perception
`
`21. When information is displayed on the screen, the speed and accuracy
`
`with which a user can interact is heavily influenced by their ability to find desired
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`information on the screen. The visual search for information is largely controlled
`
`by the anatomy of the eye and specifically the retina. Figure 3 shows the anatomy
`
`of the eye. Most of the retina is the periphery with a small spot near the center
`
`called the macula or the fovea. The periphery has a lot of sensors but they are quite
`
`spread out and can only sense gray, not color. This means that most of the image
`
`that we see at any one time is gray and quite blurry. The sensors at the fovea are
`
`densely packed so that we see in high resolution and they also can sense color.
`
`Low RDSDIIJIIDI1
`GrayFast
`
`I
`Macuiaf
`FDVEG
`High Resolution
`Ooh:-I
`Slaw
`Saccade Sfsec
`
`Figure 3 — Eye anatomy
`
`22. At first most people do not believe that their eye works this way
`
`because they think they see everything in high resolution and in color. In actuality
`
`that is your visual memory that is supplying the information as well as the fact that
`
`your eye can move very rapidly. As soon as you think about wanting to see
`
`something, your eye moves to look at it and it appears in high resolution. This
`
`effect can be understood by a simple experiment. Pick a line of text in the middle
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBMJZOIS-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`of this paragraph. Hold your eyes still and witl1out moving them, attempt to read
`
`the lines above and below. With double-spaced text you will not be able to see
`
`anything but a blur outside of the line you. are looking at.
`
`23.
`
`Because only the fovea can pick up high resolution information, it
`
`relies upon the eye’s ability to move very rapidly (5 times per -second) and on the
`
`periphery to identify important locations to look. However, the periphery is limited
`
`in its ability to identify where to look because of its low resolution (blurry images).
`
`Good interface design will organize information so that it is easy for the periphery
`
`to identify where the eye should look for the desired information. For example, this
`
`is why warning lights in a car are displayed around a cars more frequently viewed
`
`speedometer. The claims of the ‘41l patent describe a particular way of
`
`constructing a GUI with a specific set of visual relationships to simplify visual
`
`search for the information.
`
`C. Expressive leverage
`
`24.
`
`The process of visual search is only part of the technical problem of
`
`creating an efficient interactive solution. We also need to minimize the human
`
`effort to interact with the GUI. One principle of such interactivity is called
`
`“expressive leverage” [OLSE 07]. Expressive leverage is the ratio between the
`
`amount of information to be expressed and the amount of human effort required in
`
`such expression. High expressive leverage creates Very eflicient user interfaces.
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBl\/12015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`Natural languages such as English are attractive due to their high expressive
`
`leverage.
`
`25.
`
`A very common way to measure human effort in an interaction is the
`
`keystroke-level model (KLM) [CARD 08]. This simply counts the number of key
`
`or button entries required to accomplish a task. This measure has many limitations
`
`but it will serve here as a simple measure of expressive leverage in this discussion.
`
`Use PrEv.iau5 ..
`
`Name:
`
`George Menden hall
`
`Street Address:
`
`1450 Sonuma Blvd
`
`City:
`
`_ Pig Creek
`
`=
`:
`
`'
`
`lap
`98 765
`
`I
`
`i
`
`|
`
`I
`
`Figure 4 — Form Filling
`
`26.
`
`In one application a user may be required to enter a shipping address
`
`using the form shown in figure 4. To enter the address shown in the figure requires
`
`49 key presses plus 5 mouse clicks for a KLM measure of 54. If the user enters this
`
`address many times, the designers can introduce the “Use Previous” button that
`
`requires only 1 click (expressive leverage of 54/1) to accomplish the task. This is
`
`the technique used by Amazon in US Patent 5,960,411. These examples are
`
`modern instances of the same kind of innovation found in the power steering
`
`Page 16 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM20l5-D0181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`patent. Again bits and pixels have replaced shafts, wheels and gears but the
`
`concept of magnifying the power of humans to effect desired actions is the same.
`
`IX.
`
`The ‘4l1 patent analysis
`
`27.
`
`The preceding discussion has laid out some of the knowledge and
`
`principles found in the field of interface design. We have shown that improvements
`
`to interfaces have long been the subject of patentable technologies and provide
`
`specific benefits. In particular, the ‘41l patent addresses the technical problem of
`
`increasing the speed and accuracy of entering data and usability by constructing a
`
`GUI to improve user interaction by displaying market information and areas in an
`
`order entry region selectable by a single action to set a price for a trade order and
`
`send an order at that price with a default quantity. It is not the nature of commodity
`
`trading that is claimed in the ‘411 patent but rather the technology of a new
`
`mechanism for improved efficiency in entering data and sending messages
`
`representing trades that is claimed.
`
`Page 17 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBMZOIS-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,4l 1
`
`Figure 5 — [Figure 4] from the ‘411 patent
`
`The third—fifth, and seventh paragraphs of claim 1 are as follows:
`
`displaying, via the computing device, a bid display region comprising
`a plurality of graphical locations, each graphical location in the bid
`display region corresponding to a different price level of a plurality of
`price levels along a price axis;
`
`displaying, via the computing device, an ask display region
`comprising a plurality of graphical locations, each graphical location
`in the ask display region corresponding to a different price level of the
`plurality of price levels along the price axis;
`
`dynamically displaying, via the computing device, a first indicator
`representing quantity associated with at least one trade order to buy
`the commodity at the current highest bid price in a first graphical
`location of the plurality of graphical locations in the bid display
`
`1?
`
`Page 18 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBNIZOI 5-0018.1
`
`US. Patent 7,676,41 I
`
`region, the first graphical location in the bid display region
`corresponding to a price level associated with the current highest bid
`price;
`
`dynamically displaying, via the computing device, a second indicator
`
`representing quantity associated with at least one trade order to sell
`
`the commodity at the current lowest ask price in a first graphical
`location of the plurality of graphical locations in the ask display
`region, the first graphical location in the ask display region
`corresponding to a price level associated with the current lowest ask
`
`price;
`
`These elements provide benefits for several reasons. First is that the axis
`
`alignment improves Visual search by the fovea for a specific market price.
`
`Alignment along the axis gives the eye a very specific direction to look. Arranging
`
`the prices in regular intervals gives the brain’s visual system a good idea of exactly
`
`how far to look to locate a specific price. Arranging the bid/ask information in a
`
`specific locations relative to the price location greatly simplifies the trader’s visual
`
`search for bid information at a specific price. The requirement of the common
`
`price axis displayed against both bid and ask solves the technical problem of the
`
`user efficiently perceiving the whole market.
`
`29.
`
`The sixth paragraph of claim 1 reads:
`
`upon receipt of market information comprising a new highest bid
`price, moving the first indicator relative to the price axis to a second
`graphical location of the plurality of graphical locations in the bid
`display region, the second graphical location corresponding to a price
`level ofthe plurality of price levels associated with the new highest
`
`18
`
`Page 19 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBMZOIS-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`bid price, wherein the second graphical location is different from the
`first graphical location in the bid display region;
`
`The goal of this element is to show movement of the highest bid price as the
`
`market changes. Because the price axis is remaining static the periphery of the eye
`
`as well as the visual memory retains the position of various prices without the
`
`time-consuming process of reading the prices using the fovea. As the highest bid
`
`price moves it is easy for the eye to follow and for the trader to quickly understand
`
`the corresponding price change. This is made possible because‘ the indicator is
`
`moving relative to the fixed price locations. This is in contrast with the old method
`
`in figure 2 of the ‘4l1 patent where the user must read prices (visually much
`
`slower) to understand the movement. The eighth paragraph of claim 1 claims
`
`similar interactive properties as paragraph six. The difference is that it discusses
`
`the lowest ask price rather than the highest bid price. The visual analysis is the
`
`same.
`
`30.
`
`The ninth and tenth paragraphs of claim 1 read:
`
`displaying, via the computing device, an order entry region
`
`comprising a plurality of graphical areas for receiving single action
`
`commands to set trade order prices and send trade orders, each
`
`graphical area corresponding to a different price level along the price
`
`axis; and
`
`selecting a particular graphical area in the order entry region through a
`
`single action of the user input device to both set a price for the trade
`
`order and send the trade order having a default quantity to the
`
`electronic exchange
`
`19
`
`Page 20 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`This paragraph of the claim further defines the structure and features of the GUI,
`
`namely the order entry region that a user may select to send trade orders. This
`
`paragraph shows that the claimed invention addresses the whole interactive
`
`problem, not just the Visual display. Specifically, the claimed GUI provides
`
`functionality for a trader to not only understand the market but repeatedly take
`
`action within that market. By aligning the graphical areas that accept order
`
`commands with the corresponding prices, the ‘4l1 patent takes advantage of two
`
`GUI principles. The alignment with the price simplifies the eye’s location of the
`
`order command area. Also by aligning the order area with the price the trader can
`
`simultaneously specify the price as well as the order. This increases the expressive
`
`leverage of the user interface. The inclusion of a default quantity further increases
`
`the expressive leverage.
`
`31.
`
`The whole of the language of claim 1 is not about executing
`
`commodity trades. The claim provides the structure, make-up, and functionality to
`
`address technical problems ofproviding a GUI that is efficient to perceive and
`
`accurate and eficient for entering data over the conventional systems (e. g., Fig. 2
`
`GU15) that the patent discloses. The inventors have applied GUI design knowledge
`
`to the particular area of commodities trading to achieve a practical solution of
`
`providing a more efficient interface for doing commodity trading. Thus, they have
`
`applied technical knowledge to a technical problem.
`
`20
`
`Page 21 of 125
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`X. Market speed
`
`32.
`
`In previous work by the inventors and others it was common to
`
`provide the current market bid and ask prices in a fixed location in a GUI. Figure 2
`
`of the ‘4 1 1 patent. The patent describes this as the normal user interface for
`
`commodity trading before the technology covered by the ‘411 patent was
`
`introduced. It is also my understanding that these displayed prices could be
`
`clicked to execute an order at the current market price. The problem is that people
`
`cannot respond to Visual data in less than 200 milliseconds and usually much
`
`longer. However, the commodities market changes much faster than that. This
`
`means that traders using such a user interface would not always order at the price
`
`they thought they were (if they were trying to obtain a particular price) because
`
`between the time they decided to order and they could execute a click the price
`
`would have changed. From the user’s perspective, an order placed at a price that
`
`differed from their intended price would be a data entry error. From the computer’s
`
`perspective, the interface would be operating correctly. The ‘4 11 method provides
`
`an improved GUI for traders who want to enter an order at a particular price
`
`because it constructs the GUI in a way that removes that discrepancy between the
`
`user’s intended price and what the computer understands the user’s selected price
`
`to be. This allows for exact price orders to be executed, addressing this problem.
`
`Page 22 of 125
`
`

`
`References
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`[CARD 80] Card, Stuart K; Moran, Thomas P; Allen, Newell (1980). "The
`
`keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems".
`
`Communications of the ACM 23 (7): 396-410.
`
`[OLSE 07] Olsen, D. R. "Evaluating User Interface Systems Research,"
`
`UIST 2007, ACM (2007)
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and that
`
`all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that Willftll false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Date: 642$;/5
`
`B % é
`
`Dan R. Olsen, J .
`
`Page 23 of 125
`
`

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

`
`J I) Fole}
`Editor
`
`Graphics and
`Image Pl'OC£.‘I-Slilg
`The Ke stroke-Level
`Model or User
`Performance _T1me
`with Interacttve
`Systems
`
`Stuart K. Card and Thomas P. Moran
`Xerox Palo Alto Research C enter
`
`Allen Newcll
`
`Carnegie-Mellon University
`
`There are several aspects 0! user-computer
`performance that system designers should
`syslemati-ca.ll3' consider. This article proposu a simple
`model. the I{eystroke~Level Model. for predicting one
`aspect of performance: the time it takes an expert user
`to perform a given task on a given computer system.
`The mode! is based on counting keystrokes and other
`low-level operations.
`the user's menial
`preparations and the system's responses. Perfornxance
`iscodedintenrtsoftheseosterativuns undoperator
`fines summed to give predictions. Heuristic rules are
`given for predicting where mental preparations occur.
`When tested against an an to difierent systems. um
`model‘; preuiictim error is 21 percent for -mdivwal
`tasks. An examle is given to ilinstntehstflv the model
`canbeusedteprofiacepanmetricpredictiosnsandhow
`sensitititj‘ analysis can be used to redeem conclusions
`in the face at uncertain usumptions. Finally. the model
`is compared to several simpler versiaus. The potential
`role {or the !l'.eyst;rok¢-Level Model in system design is
`discussed.
`
`Key Words and Phrases: lamina-cornputer in-terlace.
`human-cuter interaction. user model. user
`performance. contrive psychology. ergonomics, human
`factors. systems design
`CR Categories: 3.36. 4.& 8.1
`
`
`grants-cl prorated Lhatlhe copmaxznmmadaordssmbuwd for (lift-‘.1
`cummcrual advantage. the ACNE oopyngtzi some and the mic or the
`pubhcauonmdmxtau:appea:.andncIuuc isywtn that rat:-pywnguhy
`permumun of the hnocuatmn {or Cmnputmg Mm:lx1tIcI'y To copy
`ottmwssc. ur to icpubhill. mquiflts a In and /or spa.-at's: pcnnnasm
`&I.t§hm'I' ptucnl aidmacx SK. Card and TJ’. Mann. Xmn
`Colqaotalxnt. Palo Alto Rarearch I_'cnl.tt'.J3J3Ca1H3l¢ Hill Road. Palo
`Alto. (in 943414‘. A Naval]. D1:
`of Computer Science. Car-
`m:=gio~Mellm: Unrva-rut}. Piruburgb. PA 15213.
`@ l¢H3 RCA-I [KIM -fi782fBi}/U7'lfl-0396 51]}, 75
`
`356
`
`I. Introduction
`
`'|"hc design and cvalualmn ul‘ lt1l8l“it(.‘ll\rt: uvmptltcr
`.-qrstcms should take Into .-tccnunt the tutu! pcrllnm-.mcc
`nfthc mrtihincd user-contpulcr .~'_v:ucin_ Such an account
`would rcllccl
`the pS_\r‘l.IlIulL'>g|Céll ch;iractcri.stu;s of u:-err.
`and llltttf mtcractiun with the task and the computer.
`This rarely occurs in am; systematic and ¢.IpllL'll way.
`The causes nI' Ihts failure unay lie prmly lI'| attitude.-s
`toward the possibility uf dcalirtg succa;-a:2t'ttll3.' with pray-
`chological factors. such as lhr: belief that intuttiun. sub-
`jcctivc experience. and unccdotc furrn tht: only txmiblc
`bases for dealing with them Whatever run); be true ul‘
`these: more global issues. om: flllljfli cause is the absence
`of good analysis tools for as.-ecssing mmhmcd u.-scr-cum-
`putcr performance.
`There exists quite a bit of research relevant to the
`area of u:.er—cou1pulcI' performance. but most of it
`15
`prtliminary in nature. Pcw et al. [14], in a review oI”40
`potentially relevant human-system performance models.
`conclude “that integrative models of human performance
`compatible with the requirements for representing com-
`mand and control system performance do not exist at the
`present time." Ramsey and Atwood [IS]. after reviewing
`the human factors literature pertinent to comp