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.,
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`CBM2015-00161 (U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2)1
`CBM2015-00172 (U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 B1) 2
`CBM2015-00179 (U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 B1)
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIC GOULD-BEAR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`TRADESTATION, IBG, ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00161, CBM2015-00172
`CBM2015-00179, CBM2015-00181, CBM2015-00182
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3
`I.
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 3
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 4
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ......................................................................... 10
`V.
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION ..................................................................... 10
`A.
`Inventions Necessarily Rely on Existing Technologies ..................... 10
`B.
`The Science of Human-Computer Interaction .................................... 12
`C.
`Problem. ........................................................................................ 16
`D.
`Signals. .......................................................................................... 28
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 29
`
`The TT Patents are Concerned with Solving a Technical GUI
`
`Computer-Readable Medium Claims are Not Directed at Propagated
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1: BEAR CV
`EXHIBIT 2: TUFTE VISUAL AND STATISTICAL THINKING
`EXHIBIT 3: MACKENZIE AND BUXTON ON FITTS’ LAW
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Page 2 of 82
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”
`
`or “Patent Owner”), in this action. My credentials are described in my CV, which
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. I offer this report on the technology at issue in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,766,304 B2 (the “’304 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,767,411 B2 (the
`
`“’411 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 B1 (the “’132 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “TT Patents”) in response to the Covered Business Patent Review matters
`
`CBM2015-00161, CBM2015-00181
`
`and CBM2015-00182
`
`instituted by
`
`TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation Securities, Inc. (“TS”, “TradeStation”
`
`or “Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by TT’s counsel to explain whether and how
`
`graphical user interface design and development is technology and whether the
`
`inventions claimed in the TT Patents are technical solutions to technical problems.
`
`To be clear, I am not opining on either §102 or §103 issues; and have been advised
`
`that another expert, Mr. Christopher Thomas, has opined that the claims in the TT
`
`Patents are both novel and non-obvious. I am being compensated at the rate of $480
`
`per hour. My compensation is not related to the outcome of this case.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`3.
`
`As a result of performing the analysis described herein and measured
`
`against the standards outlined below in Section IV, I have determined that, in my
`
`3
`
`
`Page 3 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`opinion, the TT Patents claim a new and improved graphical user interface. Herein,
`
`I explain how graphical user interfaces are technologies for human interaction
`
`designed and purpose-built to address problems of speed, accuracy, efficiency and
`
`usability – all technical problems. Since graphical user interfaces are inherently
`
`technology, the TT Patents claims are necessarily directed to technology; solving
`
`technical problems with technical solutions. The claims are not directed to a
`
`business method or practice. And since they explicitly improve upon known
`
`computer technologies, they are neither merely implemented using known computer
`
`technology nor directed to routine and conventional computing components or steps.
`
`My opinion is supported by the evidence in the patent specification, figures and
`
`claims.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am the first named inventor on at least 80 United States patent
`
`applications that list me as an inventor. These are cataloged in my CV. To date, at
`
`least 70 of those applications have issued as U.S. patents. I am also the first named
`
`inventor on a number of international patents and patent applications.1
`
`5.
`
`Inventions of mine for which patents have been issued include virtual
`
`
`1 Some of my patents and applications identify me as “Gould” while others identify
`me as “Bear” because I legally changed my name from Eric Justin Gould to Eric
`Justin Gould Bear after adopting my first child from China in 1999.
`
`
`4
`
`
`Page 4 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`force-feedback user interfaces, methods of navigating poly-hierarchical information,
`
`management of playlists that include both owned and un-owned songs, real-time
`
`communications architectures, auxiliary visual displays for personal computers,
`
`auxiliary processing by sleeping computing devices, methods for reducing parallax
`
`in computer camera systems, methods for using telephony controls on personal
`
`computers, methods for navigating content using media transport controls, and
`
`methods for unifying audio control on personal computers. More recent applications
`
`claim inventions relating to symbolic and schematic displays of protocol-specific
`
`information, user interfaces for visualizing data backup and recovery, and handheld
`
`multi-channel interactive environments.
`
`6.
`
`By the time I was 12, I was programming computers in BASIC using
`
`Tandy TRS-80 and Apple personal computers. In 1984, I formed Element Systems
`
`to provide a consulting framework for my interface design and code production
`
`skills. From 1984 to 1993, I designed and engineered software for clients in utilizing
`
`a variety of coding languages, including BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, 68000 Assembly
`
`Language and HyperCard / SuperCard. Clients included Aetna Life Insurance,
`
`Kaleida Labs (an Apple/IBM joint venture) and SoftWriters, for whom I wrote code
`
`to perform network administration of remote computer systems in 1991. Other
`
`clients are listed in my CV.
`
`7.
`
`In 1986, two years after Apple released the Macintosh computer, I
`
`became an Apple Certified Developer.
`
`5
`
`
`Page 5 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`8.
`
`In 1988 and 1989, I designed and developed a significant portion of the
`
`code for Aetna Life Insurance's first graphical user interface. The transformation of
`
`Aetna's financial information system from a command line terminal to a modern
`
`point and click Macintosh application (e.g. with mouse, icons, radio buttons, check
`
`boxes and clickable text entry fields) marked my first experience leading groups of
`
`engineers in the design of a multi-million dollar user experience (“UX”) program.
`
`9.
`
`In 1991, I received a Bachelor of Arts from Wesleyan University in
`
`Cognitive Science, an interdisciplinary degree that combined the studies of
`
`Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics and Computer Science. Example coursework
`
`included biological neurophysiology, artificial intelligence programming in LISP
`
`and research in human perception of audio/visual phenomena as presented and
`
`measured by computing machines. The Psychology Department at Wesleyan was
`
`also a client, for whom I designed and engineered test tools in Lightspeed Pascal and
`
`SuperCard for millisecond timing of visual search tasks in perception experiments.
`
`10.
`
`In the summer of 1992, I interned at Apple, Inc. (then Apple Computer,
`
`Inc.) in the Advanced Technology Group’s Human Interface Group where I worked
`
`on designing and programming user interfaces for an auditory-only display device.
`
`I joined ACM and SigCHI (Special interest group on Computer Human Interaction)
`
`at that time and am now a lifetime member. I am also a lifetime member of CPSR
`
`(Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), which I joined in 1992.
`
`11.
`
`In 1993, I received a Masters of Professional Studies in Interactive
`
`6
`
`
`Page 6 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`Telecommunications from New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts. On full
`
`scholarship, I designed and engineered various hardware, software and interactive
`
`video experiences. New York University (with Bell Atlantic) was one of my clients
`
`in 1992, for which I developed software to decode telephone touch-tones. This code
`
`enabled Manhattan Cable TV viewers to control 3D graphical environments on
`
`broadcast television in real-time using their telephone handsets.
`
`12. From 1994 to 1999, I held faculty positions at San Francisco State
`
`University (Multimedia Studies Program) and The University of Texas at Austin
`
`(Department of Radio-TV-Film). I taught graduate and undergraduate courses in
`
`multimedia design as well as advanced interaction and interface design, including
`
`mentoring students in the development of experimental hardware/software UX.
`
`During this same period, I wrote the user interface design column for InterActivity
`
`Magazine. A list of these articles and other publications is included in my CV.
`
`13.
`
`I have also presented papers and given talks regularly on topics relating
`
`to inventorship, UX design and interactive media. I have made presentations at
`
`conferences of ACM SigCHI, SXSW, the International Consumer Electronics Show
`
`(CES), Digital Hollywood and the TV of Tomorrow Show. I have also served as an
`
`independent judge of conference paper submissions and regularly serve on the
`
`SXSW Advisory Board. A list of my presentations and talks is provided in my CV.
`
`14.
`
`I founded MONKEYmedia in San Francisco in 1994 to provide the
`
`desktop computing, new media and consumer electronics industries a design and
`
`7
`
`
`Page 7 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`technology resource focused specifically on human-computer interaction. Clients
`
`included Interval Research Corporation, Texas Instruments, Sega of America,
`
`Sprint, Viacom, Microsoft / WebTV. MONKEYmedia earned industry recognition
`
`for my work, including a CLIO, an Award of Excellence from Communication Arts,
`
`Best Use of Audio at South by Southwest (SXSW) and other awards.
`
`15. From 2001 through 2005, I held executive leadership positions at
`
`Microsoft Corporation and Yahoo! Inc. At each company, I directed teams of
`
`interaction designers, visual designers, user researchers, ethnographers and
`
`prototype engineers responsible for crafting the UX of various product lines. These
`
`programs included Windows Tablet PC Edition, the Windows Hardware Innovation
`
`Group, Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Photos, Yahoo! Personals,
`
`Yahoo!/SBC (now AT&T) set-top experience and Yahoo! Mobile applications.
`
`Descriptions of my work for those corporations are detailed in my CV.
`
`16. Beginning in 2005, I have provided executive consulting services in
`
`corporate user experience strategy and design innovation through Chief Experience
`
`Officer, Inc. In this capacity, I have lead the UX strategy and design of computer
`
`mice, universal remote controls, mobile phones, stock trading applications, legal
`
`research tools, home automation systems and medical devices for companies
`
`including Logitech, Tektronix, Motorola, Charles Schwab, Thomson Reuters and
`
`others mentioned in my CV. My work on Logitech’s premium mice and remote
`
`controls contributed to winning a number of industry awards, including multiple
`
`8
`
`
`Page 8 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`2007 CES Technology & Innovation Awards, a 2008 CES Best of Innovations
`
`Award, a 2009 CES Best of Innovations Category Winner Award, and a 2010 CES
`
`Innovations Award.
`
`17. Of particular relevance to this matter is my work on Charles Schwab’s
`
`active stock trading application “Street Smart Edge.” On the project, I led a team of
`
`user interface and interaction designers in studying trader habits and usability
`
`challenges and writing functional and technical specifications for Charles Schwab’s
`
`engineering team to implement that addressed those usability challenges.
`
`18.
`
`In 2012, I designed and wrote an iPad application entitled Walk-in
`
`Theater in collaboration with videographer Rachel Strickland and musician Jim
`
`McKee. Walk-in Theater is an experiment with peripatetic perspective, engaging
`
`participants' proprioceptors and spatial memory to orient them as they navigate
`
`among multiple video streams in a 3D sound field.
`
`19.
`
`In 2013, I joined Austin’s Capital Factory start-up incubator as a partner
`
`and angel investor, where I serve as an advisor to executives in intellectual property
`
`strategy and the design and development of new hardware, software and services. I
`
`am currently employed by CURB, Inc. – an early-stage startup that manufactures
`
`energy monitoring and control systems – as its Chief Experience Officer.
`
`20. My experience designing and evaluating user interfaces over the last
`
`25+ years, including the optimization of human performance through the use of
`
`computing technology and automated feedback of various forms and modalities, as
`
`9
`
`
`Page 9 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`well as my background hiring and managing teams of user experience professionals,
`
`position me as an expert in the design and development of graphical user interfaces.
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`21.
`
`In performing my analysis, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`TT Patents and portions of each of TT’s Preliminary Response in the related TD
`
`Ameritrade proceedings (CBM2014-00136 filed 9/3/2014), the Federal Circuit’s
`
`opinion in the related eSpeed proceedings (595 F.3d 1340 (2010) issued on
`
`4/21/2010), the Federal Circuit’s §112 opinion issued on 11/27/2013 in the related
`
`728 F.3d 1309 (2013) proceedings, Judge Coleman’s opinion in the related CQG
`
`proceedings (05-cv-4811) holding that the ’304 Patent is patent eligible, portions of
`
`declarations by Kendyl A. Román in support of TradesStation’s petitions for CBM
`
`review of the ’132 Patent and the ’411 Patent and the deposition of his corresponding
`
`cross-examinations, the petitions for CBM review, TT’s preliminary and revised
`
`preliminary responses to those petitions, and the PTAB’s decision to institute the
`
`corresponding CBM reviews.
`
`22. For consistency and ease of review, all of my column and line citations
`
`to the patent specification are in “(column:line)” format.
`
`V.
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`A. Inventions Necessarily Rely on Existing Technologies
`
`23. No new technology can exist in a vacuum wholly disconnected from
`10
`
`
`Page 10 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`the past. Whether built using metal, wood, plastic or pixels on a computer screen,
`
`all innovations must – to some extent – be made from a combination of known
`
`components. Pixels are building block materials used to construct software
`
`interfaces just like plastic is a building block material used to construct hardware
`
`controls. Whether any given combination is obvious and unanticipated is a
`
`reasonable question to be raised, but it is my understanding that the present CBM
`
`review is not concerned with either anticipation or obviousness issues. I have not
`
`studied the prior art at length and do not have an opinion at this time with regards to
`
`§102 and §103 validity.
`
`24. There are myriad user interface visualization and interaction techniques
`
`known to be employable when creating new user experiences. The existence of these
`
`techniques, aka technologies, is akin to the existence of raw physical building
`
`materials. Just like building a house, certain technologies lend themselves to certain
`
`types of use. Similarly, certain technologies draw designers of software systems into
`
`using them in particular combinations. Simply knowing that various technologies
`
`exist that can be used for a variety of purposes is not enough to motivate, inspire or
`
`enable someone to combine such techniques in new ways. Nonetheless, I believe it
`
`important to establish that human-computer perception and/or human-computer
`
`interaction innovations should not be treated differently from innovations based on
`
`physical technologies not built using software toolkits.
`
`11
`
`
`Page 11 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`B. The Science of Human-Computer Interaction
`
`25. Understanding the purported inventiveness of TT Patent depends upon
`
`understanding the field of the invention – which is the science of human-computer
`
`interaction (“HCI”), also known as user experience (“UX”) design – as applied in
`
`the context of stock trading with a mission critical tool.
`
`26. The discipline of user experience grew out of ergonomics and what was
`
`once called man-machine interface (“MMI”). It is generally concerned with how to
`
`make machines reliably responsive to human expression while being easy to use and
`
`unobtrusive. The user interface (“UI”) or graphical user interface (“GUI”) is the
`
`boundary or bridge between a person and a machine. It includes the physical
`
`hardware and logical software, capturing concrete measurable human input and
`
`outputting processed information for human perception. To be clear, the invention
`
`neither claims nor improves the underlying process of trading, but rather offers a
`
`better GUI for human interaction within the existing trading model. In other words,
`
`trading, itself, is not at issue; but specific display and interaction techniques for
`
`trading with speed, accuracy and a minimum of error are at issue.
`
`27. Various other terms have been used over the past decades of the
`
`development of the science as it has matured. Technical aspects of the science
`
`include human
`
`factors engineering
`
`(“HFE”), ergonomics, ergonometrics,
`
`biomechanics, industrial design, cognitive engineering, user research, design
`
`research, usability engineering, user-centered design (“UCD”),
`
`interaction
`
`12
`
`
`Page 12 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`engineering, interaction design (“IxD”), information architecture (“IA”), and
`
`product design.
`
`28. Don Norman is generally recognized as a “founding father” of the
`
`modern UX discipline. He is a former VP and User Experience Architect at Apple
`
`Inc. and a professor of Cognitive Science and Psychology at UCSD. He taught
`
`practitioners in the industry many core concepts. Of note and particular relevance
`
`to the TT Patents are: (1) affordances, which define what is possible for people to
`
`do at any given time; and (2) feedback, which let people know what can be done,
`
`what they are doing or what they just did. How specific affordances and feedback
`
`are designed and engineered depends heavily on the circumstances of use, and there
`
`is an international community of user experience professionals that have been
`
`meeting and settings standards for over 30 years. The Association of Computing
`
`Machines’ special interest group on computer human interaction (SigCHI), has been
`
`hosting the premier international conference on human factors in computing systems
`
`since 1982. And the International Standards Organization (ISO) has adopted
`
`standards in “ergonomic principles in the design of work systems” that date back to
`
`1981 (ISO 6485:1981) and standards in “human-centered design processes for
`
`interactive systems” (ISO 13407:1999E) dating to the time of invention of the TT
`
`Patents. These standards were developed because the design of a GUI is analogous
`
`to the crafting of a physical workspace or cockpit – and incorporates many of the
`
`same human factors engineering variables, such as reachability, readability, glance-
`
`13
`
`
`Page 13 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`ability, performance, speed, and risk of error. These standards may be used to create
`
`new and innovative GUIs that are broadly used and adapted.
`
`29. By the time of invention of the TT Patents, many corporations had
`
`established a track record of investing heavily into user experience research and
`
`design to craft and improve the engineering of their own products and the industry’s
`
`technical competency, generally. A few entities recognized for their technical
`
`contributions to the field in the late 1990s include Xerox PARC, Apple, IBM,
`
`Microsoft, Philips, Sony, AT&T, HP, SAP, SunSoft, Intel, Disney and the National
`
`Science Foundation. By the time of invention of the TT Patents, there were many
`
`leading universities with advanced degrees in one or more UX disciplines. Notable
`
`programs turning out graduates who made a significant inventive impact on the field
`
`by the late 1990s included those at Stanford, M.I.T., Carnegie Mellon, N.Y.U.,
`
`University of Maryland, University of Toronto, University of Michigan, UCSD,
`
`SFSU, Georgia Tech, George Washington University, Bowling Green, Delft
`
`University and the Royal College of Art.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that Petitioner’s expert Kendyl A. Román has
`
`opined that a college education is not needed to design user interfaces. This may be
`
`true of the design of casual user interfaces, such as simplistic websites, but not the
`
`design of mission critical applications. Commodities trading is high stakes and
`
`requires a trained and nuanced understanding of human factors variables to interpret
`
`the complexity of usability issues and appreciate the value of technical solutions to
`
`14
`
`
`Page 14 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`specific perception and interaction behavior challenges. This is especially true of
`
`the users of the claimed invention, who are professional derivatives traders that
`
`conduct such trading for their profession. Many well-funded entities – including
`
`software providers, stock exchanges, brokers, futures commission merchants
`
`(FCMs) and trading groups – knew the value of technically sophisticated user
`
`interface experts and invested heavily in GUI technology development as part of
`
`their efforts to innovate in the space.
`
`31. The user experience success metrics used today are the same as they
`
`were at the time of invention of the TT Patents. Great user experiences occur to end-
`
`users as simple and easy to use, quick and efficient, seamless and effortless. Getting
`
`the user experience right is also essential for mission critical tasks, where people’s
`
`lives or life savings are at stake. A suboptimal GUI can contribute to mistakes that
`
`cause irreversible damage (e.g. losses of life, losses of wealth, destruction of
`
`property).
`
`32. But to accomplish excellent results depends on the science of user
`
`experience design. There are three general domains of design involved in crafting
`
`user experiences: information design, interaction design, and interface design.
`
`Information design is about the specific techniques for organizing content.
`
`Interaction design is about what people functionally do with their bodies and their
`
`hands, such as hovering over a cell and clicking a mouse button. And interface
`
`design proper is about the sensory aspects of the experience. How are things
`
`15
`
`
`Page 15 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`technically changing on screen? How do people know what they can do? How do
`
`they know what they are doing and what they just did?
`
`33. Due to the complexities and nuances technical design of GUIs,
`
`following a scientific method is necessary to invent successful GUIs that ultimately
`
`appear to end users as magically intuitive and, thus, at risk of feeling obvious in
`
`hindsight. This process normally involves: (a) listening to users and understanding
`
`their technical needs, (b) inventing and designing novel technical solutions, (c)
`
`validating the efficacy of those novel technical solutions through usability testing,
`
`(d)
`
`iteratively refining
`
`those novel
`
`technical solutions, and (e) clearly
`
`communicating to engineers the specific technical details of the resultant visual
`
`interfaces and human-computer interaction techniques so they can be accurately
`
`constructed to operate as designed. Using such well-weathered objective methods
`
`is what makes interactions between people and machines predictable, measureable
`
`and reproducible.
`
`C. The TT Patents are Concerned with Solving a Technical GUI Problem.
`
`34.
`
`I am aware that petitioners argue that the claims solve a business
`
`problem of a trader entering an order at an intended price, not a technical problem.
`
`Even if petitioners were correct to frame the problem of a trader completing an order
`
`at a correct price as a “business problem.”, the claimed invention solves technical
`
`problems of speed, precision, and usability with prior GUI tools. These are classic
`
`technical problems. Solving an additional business problem, even if true, does not
`16
`
`
`Page 16 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`negate the technological problems solved by the claimed invention. Trading is the
`
`field of application for the claimed GUI tool and the asserted business problem of
`
`obtaining a trade order at an intended price is merely an application of the claimed
`
`technology. All innovative tools that solve technical problems also solve problems
`
`in their field of use. For example, a flight instrument embodied in a GUI can address
`
`both a technical problem (usability) and a problem in its field (flight safety). The
`
`problems of speed, accuracy, and usability and their solution are necessarily rooted
`
`in computer technology and the operation of prior art GUIs, not in a business
`
`practice.
`
`35. The first sentence of the TT Patents’ common abstract clearly defines
`
`the motivation for the invention as technical – “A method and system for reducing
`
`the time it takes for a trader to place a trade when electronically trading on an
`
`exchange, thus increasing the likelihood that the trader will have orders filled at
`
`desirable prices and quantities.” (emphasis added). In other words, the invention is
`
`being accurately framed as addressing speed, accuracy and technical usability
`
`challenges. Reducing task time is a technical challenge well established in the field
`
`of user interface and interaction design. It is also a well-established technical
`
`problem in the field of physical devices and man machine interfaces. Also,
`
`increasing task accuracy is a technical challenge well established in the field of user
`
`interface and interaction design – in both hardware and software realms. As in the
`
`physical world, motivations to solve such technical challenges generally do not yield
`
`17
`
`
`Page 17 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`obvious solutions, and that even the most intellectually logical solutions do not
`
`necessarily correlate with the most intuitive or efficacious solutions. For that reason,
`
`the science of user experience depends heavily on usability research and real-world
`
`validation testing to ascertain technical efficacy and to direct designers back to the
`
`drawing board to craft better performing and frequently novel and non-obvious
`
`solutions.
`
`36. The subsequent sentences of the TT Patents’ common abstract clearly
`
`define the invention itself as technical – the “display and trading method of the
`
`present invention ensures fast and accurate execution of trades by displaying market
`
`depth on a vertical or horizontal plane, which fluctuates logically up or down, left or
`
`right across the plane as the market prices fluctuates. This allows the trader to trade
`
`quickly and efficiently.” (emphasis added). The design of dynamic visual displays
`
`and the human-computer interactions dictated by the specific technical aspects of
`
`said visual displays is a well-established science with a rich history, requiring a
`
`nuanced appreciation of human performance variables and technical design
`
`characteristics to afford implementation excellence. Furthermore, such nuance often
`
`depends on the field of application, especially when it comes to mission critical
`
`activities. It is my understanding that there was considerable evidence that the
`
`claimed combination was successful in the marketplace, copied by others, and
`
`received praise from many participants in the industry. This is evidence of careful,
`
`nuanced, technical design that created an improvement over prior GUIs.
`
`18
`
`
`Page 18 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`37. For the avoidance of doubt about the technical nature of visual design,
`
`it is worth calling attention to the canonical works of visualization expert Edward
`
`Tufte, portions of which were cited at various times by Petitioner’s expert Kendyl
`
`A. Román (CBM2015-00181, Ex. 1019; CBM2015-00182, Ex. 1007), as evidence
`
`that (1) the crafting of effective visual displays is deeply technical, that (2) getting
`
`such displays “right” can be a matter of life and death, and that (3) getting it “right”
`
`in mission critical contexts has proven time and again to be non-obvious. Attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 2 is an excerpt from Tufte’s 1997 book, “Visual Explanations:
`
`Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative,” in which these points are made
`
`clear through varying representations of the same data to arrive at dramatically
`
`differing outcomes. These teachings illustrate visual analyses of the Cholera
`
`Epidemic in London in 1854 and the flawed decision to launch the Challenger Space
`
`Shuttle in 1986. Visual design (aka “optical engineering”) is a technical craft
`
`regularly requiring experimentation and innovation to solve technical problems of
`
`human perception and graphical reasoning in relation to numerical and statistical
`
`data, as specifically motivated by the inventors of the TT Patents.
`
`38. As a result of reading each of the patents as a whole, it is clear that each
`
`of the TT Patents are a user interface technology patent that improves the science of
`
`user experience well beyond the domain of commodity trading. The TT Patents do
`
`not claim general trading concepts independent of the specific technical limitations
`
`taught in the specification and language in the claims. Indeed, the claimed steps are
`
`19
`
`
`Page 19 of 82
`
`

`
`
`
`directed to the construction of specific GUIs and how a user can interact with them.
`
`39. Exemplary Claim 1 of the ’304 Patent is constructed to display and
`
`function as follows:
`
`1. A method for displaying market information
`relating to and facilitating trading of a
`commodity being traded in an electronic
`exchange having an inside market with a
`highest bid price and a lowest ask price on a
`graphical user interface, the method
`comprising:
`dynamically displaying a first indicator in one
`of a plurality of locations in a bid display
`region, each location in the bid display region
`corresponding to a price level along a common
`static price axis, the first indicator representing
`quantity associated with at least one order to
`buy the commodity at the highest bid price
`currently available in the market;
`dynamically displaying a second indicator in
`one of a plurality of locations in an ask display
`region, each location in the ask display region
`corresponding to a price level along the
`common static price axis, the second indicator
`representing quantity associated with at least
`one order to sell the commodity at the lowest
`ask price currently available in the market;
`displaying the bid and ask display regions in
`relation to fixed price levels positioned along
`the common static price axis such that when
`the inside market changes, the price levels
`along the common static price axis do not
`move and at least one of the first and second
`indicators moves in the bid or ask display
`regions relative to the common static price
`axis;
`
`displaying an order entry region comprising a
`plurality of locations for receiving commands
`
`The method is for constructing a
`specific on-screen GUI structure
`with specific functional human-
`machine interaction techniques.
`
`The structure of the first indicator
`is specifically located in a
`particular bid display region
`corresponding to a static price
`axis structure on the visual
`display and associated with at
`least one buy order.
`
`The structure of the second
`indicator is specifically located in
`a particular ask display region
`corresponding to the static price
`axis structure on the visual
`display and associated with at
`least one sell order.
`
`The bid and ask regions are
`specifically constructed such that
`their location on the visual display
`in relation to the