Paper No. ____
` Filed: July 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRECTED PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Overview of Claimed Invention ...................................................................... 1
`
`Section 101 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`TT’S Claims Are Not Directed to an “Abstract Idea” Under
`Alice Prong One ..................................................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioners Ignore and Overgeneralize the Claim
`Elements ...................................................................................... 5
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They Improve
`the Functioning of the Computer ................................................ 8
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Prong One of Alice Because They Are
`Undoubtedly Not Abstract ........................................................ 10
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because GUIs Are
`Technology ................................................................................ 12
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They Are Not
`Directed to a Fundamental Economic or Longstanding
`Commercial Practice, a Business Method, or a Generic
`GUI ............................................................................................ 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Claims Pass Part 2 of Alice Because They Recite an
`Inventive Concept ................................................................................ 17
`
`The Claimed Invention Is Patent-Eligible Under §101 Because
`the Claims Do Not Cover Signals ....................................................... 21
`
`III. CBM Review ................................................................................................. 22
`
`A.
`
`The ’132 Patent Does Not Claim “Data Processing” or “Other
`Operation[]” (e.g., a Business Method) .............................................. 23
`
`B.
`
`The ’132 Patent Falls Under the Technological Exception ................ 24
`
`IV. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 27
`
`A.
`
`“Order entry region” ............................................................................ 27
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`B.
`
`“Selecting a particular area in the order entry region through
`single action of the user input device… to set a plurality of
`additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade
`order to the electronic exchange” ........................................................ 27
`
`C.
`
`“Working orders in alignment with prices corresponding
`thereto” ................................................................................................ 29
`
`D.
`
`“Re-Centering Instruction” ................................................................. 29
`
`V.
`
`Real-World Evidence Proves The Claimed Invention Is Not Obvious ......... 30
`
`A.
`
`The Claimed Invention Went Against Conventional Wisdom ........... 30
`
`B. Overwhelming Secondary Considerations Prove That The
`Invention Is Not Obvious .................................................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Problems with the Conventional GUI Tools Went
`Unrecognized ............................................................................ 38
`
`The Invention Provided Unexpected Results............................ 39
`
`The Invention Was Received with Initial Skepticism, but
`Ultimately Demanded by Traders ............................................. 41
`
`The Invention’s Tremendous Commercial Success ................. 44
`
`The Invention Was Widely Copied .......................................... 48
`
`The Invention Received Widespread Praise In the
`Industry ..................................................................................... 53
`
`The Invention Also Received Widespread Industry
`Acquiescence ............................................................................ 54
`
`Others Failed To Make The Invention ...................................... 56
`
`Other Evidence Proves Non-Obviousness ................................ 58
`
`VI. The Petition Fails to Establish TSE Is Prior Art ........................................... 59
`
`A.
`
`The Evidence Fails to Prove TSE Was Publicly Accessible .............. 60
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`TSE Was Not Distributed to POSAs ........................................ 61
`
`There Is No Evidence TSE Was Available to the POSA
`Exercising Reasonable Diligence ............................................. 62
`
`B. Kawashima’s Testimony Is Uncorroborated and Biased, and
`Therefore Legally Insufficient ............................................................ 64
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Kawashima’s Testimony Is Uncorroborated ............................ 64
`
`Kawashima Is Not Disinterested ............................................... 65
`
`VII. The Claims of The ’132 Patent Are Not Rendered By TSE and Belden ...... 66
`
`A.
`
`TSE and Belden Fail to Disclose or Suggest the Claimed
`“Order Entry Region” and “Selecting… Through single Action” ...... 68
`
`B. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 70
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 3, 10, and 16 ................................................................. 70
`
`Claims 24, 34, and 44 ............................................................... 71
`
`Claims 25, 35, and 45 ............................................................... 71
`
`Claims 26, 36, and 46 ............................................................... 73
`
`Claims 29, 39, and 49 ............................................................... 75
`
`Petitioners Failed to Set Forth a Prima Facie Case of
`Obviousness .............................................................................. 77
`
`VIII. Due Process Issues and Non-Obviousness Evidence .................................... 78
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 85
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Petitioners fail to establish that U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent,”
`
`Ex.1001) is eligible for covered business method (“CBM”) patent review. The ’132
`
`patent is directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Finally,
`
`Petitioners fail to prove that the claims of the ’132 patent are obvious because TSE
`
`(Ex.1016) is not prior art, because the cited references do not render obvious all
`
`elements of the claims, and because the real-world evidence of secondary
`
`considerations demonstrate the nonobviousness of the invention.
`
`I.
`
`OVERVIEW OF CLAIMED INVENTION
`The electronic trading industry, both prior to the invention the ’132 patent
`
`and for a period thereafter, maintained a widely accepted conventional wisdom
`
`regarding the design of a graphical user interface tool (“GUI tool”) for order entry
`
`on electronic exchanges. Ex.2169, ¶48. Specifically, conventional GUIs provided
`
`the ability to enter and send orders to an electronic exchange using order entry
`
`tickets or dynamic order entry screens. Ex.2169, ¶49. Order tickets were known to
`
`be accurate but slow. Id. Figure 2 of the ’132 patent (with annotations below)
`
`exemplifies another GUI tool where users entered and sent orders by directly
`
`interfacing with displayed prices (e.g., using a mouse). Like the overwhelming
`
`majority of GUI tools for rapid entry, it was constructed with designated locations
`
`for displaying the best bid/ask prices. See Ex.1001; Ex.2169, ¶50.
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Best Bid Price is
`Always Displayed
`Here
`
`Best Ask Price is
`Always Displayed
`Here
`
`
`
`While these types of order entry tools were widely used and accepted,
`
`Brumfield noticed that the structure, make-up, and functionality of Figure 2-style
`
`GUIs caused him a significant problem—the potential to miss his intended price.
`
`Ex.2169, ¶¶83-84. Brumfield was uniquely positioned to recognize this problem as
`
`his trading focused on particular prices, as opposed to other traders that focused on
`
`market prices. Ex.2169, ¶84.
`
`As shown below (Time 1), the trader intends to get the price of 111175.
`
`However, because of the structure, make-up, and functionality of the GUI tool—
`
`namely, the best bid and best ask are located in the same location—the intended
`
`price of 111175 unpredictably moves just before the trader clicks on it and he
`
`misses his intended price, instead sending an order at the higher price of 111180
`
`(Time 2). Id.
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`Time 1
`
`
`
` Time 2
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`The Federal Circuit describes this problem as follows:
`
`Returning to the prior art, these displays had grids for the inside
`market that never changed.… A trader who wished to place an order
`at a particular price would miss that market opportunity if the inside
`market moved as the trader tried to enter an order. In a fast moving
`market, missing an intended price could happen often and have very
`significant economic consequences.
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1345-46 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010).
`
`Recognizing problems caused by the construction of the order ticket
`
`(accurate but slow) and Figure 2-style (fast but less accurate) GUI tools, Brumfield
`
`invented a GUI tool with new structure, make-up and functionality. The invention
`
`radically diverged from the conventional GUI tools of the time and turned out to
`
`provide significant advantages over the prior art by combining a static display of
`
`prices, a dynamic display of bids and asks aligned with the static display, and an
`
`order entry region aligned with the static display with areas corresponding to prices
`
`of the static display that can be selected via a single action of a user input device to
`
`set a plurality of parameters and send an order message to the electronic exchange.
`
`See Ex.1001, 2:66-3:20, cl.1; Ex.2169, ¶¶72-73. Compared to dynamic GUI tools
`
`where the location of the inside market remains fixed and the values displayed at
`
`those locations change with every inside market update, the inventive GUI’s
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`construction permits the display of the inside market to move relative to the static
`
`display of prices when the inside market changes. Ex.2169, ¶¶72-73.
`
`The Federal Circuit summarized the invention’s advantages over the pre-
`
`existing technology as allowing a trader to “visually follow the market movement”
`
`and providing a trader with “confidence in making an offer at the intended price.”
`
`eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1347.
`
`II.
`
`SECTION 101
`A.
`TT’S Claims Are Not Directed to an “Abstract Idea” Under Alice
`Prong One
`1.
`Petitioners Ignore and Overgeneralize the Claim Elements
`Petitioners ignore nearly all of the claim elements in arguing that the claims
`
`are directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has rejected this practice
`
`because “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered
`
`from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101
`
`swallow the rule.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL
`
`2756255, at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct.
`
`2347, 2354 (2014) (noting that “we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary
`
`principle [of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas] lest it swallow
`
`all of patent law”).
`
`Based on this overgeneralization, Petitioners allege the abstract idea is
`
`“placing an order based on observed (plotted) market information, as well as
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`updating market information.” Pet. 15. However, even assuming this is an abstract
`
`idea, it is “untethered” from the claim elements because it ignores nearly all of the
`
`claim elements, particularly the claimed GUI construction.
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Petitioners’ abstract-idea analysis fails because it ignores the claimed
`
`invention’s core features. See Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *6 (rejecting practice
`
`of “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from
`
`the language of the claim”); Ex.2180, 6 (rejecting that TT’s claims are directed to
`
`abstract idea of displaying and updating marketing information and placing an
`
`order because this “ignores much of the detail of the representative claims”). The
`
`Board found no error in the CQG court’s reasoning for this patent, and should
`
`follow that court’s guidance here for the additional reasons below.
`
`The purported abstract idea is further “untethered” from the claim elements
`
`because it uses words/features that are not recited in the claims. For example,
`
`“placing an order,” “observed,” “plotted,” and “updating market information” are
`
`not recited in the claims.
`
`Therefore, the claimed invention is not directed to “placing an order based
`
`on observed (plotted) market information, as well as updating market information”
`
`or any abstract idea.
`
`2.
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They Improve the
`Functioning of the Computer
`A GUI is an integral component of a computer, just like a processor,
`
`memory, and network interface. See Ex.2168, ¶¶25-29; Ex.2174, ¶¶12-14; see also
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed.
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Cir. 2016) (identifying an “interface” as a computer component); Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(same)
`
`First, at the most basic level, the claimed GUI improves the computer
`
`because it allows the computer to be used in new and inventive ways. Ex.2168,
`
`¶¶25-29; Ex.2174, ¶¶12-15. A specific improvement to the claimed GUI
`
`construction, as claimed, improves the functioning of the computer. Ex.2168, ¶¶25-
`
`29; Ex.2174, ¶¶6-27; Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *4 (“Software can make non-
`
`abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements
`
`can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route.”).
`
`Using GUIs on the iPhone, the computer can function as a phone, compass,
`
`calculator, etc. Ex.2174, ¶12. Without these GUIs, the iPhone and most personal
`
`computers are useless. Id. Claims that set forth a new GUI construction that causes
`
`the computer to function differently improve the computer.
`
`Second, the invention improves computer functioning because it solves
`
`problems caused by the computer components. Technological problems with the
`
`pre-existing Figure 2-type GUIs were the impetus for the invention. Without the
`
`GUI structure, make-up, and functionality of Figure 2-type GUIs, the problem
`
`would not have existed. The invention solves that problem with a new GUI
`
`construction (e.g., new structure, make-up, and functionality). Accordingly, the
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`invention improves computer functionality because it solves problems caused by
`
`the prior computer’s GUI tool. The claimed invention also improves the
`
`visualization of the GUI tool. Ex.2168, ¶¶34-38, 41; Ex.2169, ¶¶74, 82, 88, 89,
`
`172; Ex.1001, 7:6-51; Figs. 3, 4.
`
`Finally, the claimed invention improves the computer functioning because it
`
`sets forth structure and make-up that improves the speed, accuracy and
`
`visualization of a GUI (as discussed above). These are appreciable improvements
`
`to a user. Ex.2168, ¶¶34-38, 41; Ex.2174, ¶¶6-27. These classic engineering
`
`problems are indisputably technical. Ex.2169, ¶84; Ex.2174, ¶¶12-14. They require
`
`the computer to function differently to achieve these improved results. Ex.2168,
`
`¶49.
`
`Petitioners’ expert, Roman, testified as to the importance of these features to
`
`a user. Ex.2166, 181:7-182:3). As such, solving these technical problems clearly
`
`improves the computer’s functioning. Id.
`
`3.
`
` TT’s Claims Pass Prong One of Alice Because They Are
`Undoubtedly Not Abstract
`“Some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately
`
`claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display,
`
`and the like.” See Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *4. The structure, make-up, and
`
`functionality of a GUI is as much a physical and integral part of a computer as a
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`processor or memory, and improvements to GUIs are just as eligible for patent
`
`protection as any other computer-related technology. See, e.g., Mortg. Grader, 811
`
`F.3d at 1324; Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1370.
`
`In the Industrial Age, interfaces used physical or other tangible components
`
`(e.g., knobs, buttons, levers, dials, gauges, etc.) to control machines. See Bilski v.
`
`Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010). A patent in the Industrial Age would have
`
`claimed the structure, make-up, and functionality of the physical device (e.g.,
`
`describing a novel/nonobvious wooden lever and dial system). Few would argue
`
`that these types of physical, tangible interfaces are abstract ideas. Id.
`
`Interfaces that previously used physical knobs and levers are now
`
`implemented via GUI components, such as indicators and icons. Ex.2169, ¶22; see
`
`Ex.2174, ¶12. These GUI components are analogous to interface components of
`
`the Industrial Age, and GUIs built with them are likewise undoubtedly not abstract.
`
`See Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3227. Similarly, TT’s claims recite the construction of a
`
`novel/nonobvious GUI. TT’s claims are analogous to a physical device and are,
`
`therefore, not abstract. Ex.2169, ¶¶22-23, 178-182; Ex.2174, ¶16.
`
`11
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`4.
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because GUIs Are
`Technology
`GUIs are technology. Accordingly, improvements to GUI construction, such
`
`as TT’s, are deeply rooted in technology and patent eligible. See Enfish, 2016 WL
`
`2756255, at *6.
`
`The Association for Computing Machinery, a leading computing
`
`organization, recognizes the importance of the human-computer interaction (HCI)
`
`technology field. “Research in [HCI]… has fundamentally changed computing.”
`
`Ex.2003, 2. “Even the remarkable growth of the World Wide Web is a direct result
`
`of HCI research: applying hypertext technology to browsers allows one to traverse
`
`a link across the world with a click of the mouse. More than anything else,
`
`improvements to interfaces have triggered this explosive growth.” Id.
`
`Leading scientific research centers also recognize the importance of user
`
`interface design. For example, NASA’s Ames Research Center contains an entire
`
`HCI Group focused on interface functionality and design. Ex.2004; Ex.2005. Also,
`
`many colleges and universities offer courses and programs centered on interface
`
`design to train engineers and programmers. Ex.2006-Ex.2012.
`
`Experts also agree that GUIs are technology. Dr. Olsen states that “graphical
`
`user interfaces are a technology with specific technical problems,” Ex.2174, ¶7,
`
`and Mr. Bear states that “graphical user interfaces are inherently technology,”
`
`12
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Ex.2168, ¶3. Furthermore, Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Mellor, agreed that “the
`
`underlying technology is the graphical user interface.” See, e.g., Ex.2294, 45.
`
`Likewise, an expert for one of Petitioner’s joint defense partners, Van Dusen,
`
`agreed that the “technology described in the patents is directed to a specific type of
`
`graphical user interface for order entry.” Ex.2169, ¶173; Ex.2292, 110-11.
`
`Experts also agree that the claimed invention improves the GUI tool.
`
`Ex.2168, ¶38; Ex.2174, ¶¶15, 16, 27-32. Furthermore, Roman admitted that the
`
`claimed invention “trades one set of problems for [another].” Ex.2166, 178:14-
`
`182:3. The courts have also acknowledged the improvements. E.g., eSpeed, 595
`
`F.3d at 1347; Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC, 728 F.3d 1309, 1312-
`
`14 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming that the ’132 patent “concern[s] a graphical user
`
`interface” that is more intuitive and efficient than prior GUIs). Thus, there is no
`
`real dispute that the claimed invention is directed to technology that improves the
`
`pre-existing technology (e.g., the pre-existing GUI tools). Therefore,
`
`improvements to the structure, make-up, and functionality of the GUI are
`
`improvements to technology.
`
`5.
`
`TT’s Claims Pass Part I of Alice Because They Are Not
`Directed to a Fundamental Economic or Longstanding
`Commercial Practice, a Business Method, or a Generic GUI
`The claimed invention is not directed to “placing a trade order in an
`
`exchange.” In fact, such a conclusion would improperly ignore and overgeneralize
`
`13
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`nearly all of the claim elements. See Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *6; Ex.2180,
`
`*6.
`
`The ’132 patent’s claims are directed to the construction of a GUI tool; not a
`
`fundamental economic practice or business method (e.g., hedging or intermediated
`
`settlement). While the GUI tool may be used in the practice of trading
`
`(fundamental economic practice), that is not what is claimed. Indeed, the European
`
`Patent Office (“EPO”), which bans patents on business methods, granted claims to
`
`the foreign counterpart, finding the claims “solve[] a technical problem which is to
`
`improve the operation of the system in terms of increasing the accuracy for placing
`
`orders. In fact, this problem is independent from the business aspects of the
`
`claims.” Ex.2062, 6.
`
`Nor do the claims merely take a fundamental economic practice and migrate
`
`it to a new technological environment, as was the case in Ultramercial.
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 722 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claims do
`
`not merely add conventional computer components post-hoc to longstanding
`
`business or economic practices, as was the case in Alice and Versata. Enfish, 2016
`
`WL 2756255, at *7 (“In contrast, the claims at issue in Alice and Versata can
`
`readily be understood as simply adding conventional computer components to
`
`well-known business practices.”). Rather, “the claims are directed to a specific
`
`14
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” Id., *8.
`
`Accordingly, “the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea.” See id.
`
`Further, the claims are not merely directed to “data gathering” as was the
`
`case in CyberSource, where the claims merely took known data-gathering steps
`
`and applied them to the technological environment of the Internet. CyberSource
`
`Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Indeed,
`
`analogizing the claims to CyberSource reflects an overgeneralization and
`
`misunderstanding of TT’s claims, which provide a new structure, make-up, and
`
`functionality for a GUI.
`
`Finally, the claims do not recite data processing by a computer as was the
`
`case in Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687
`
`F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012), or a business method with the mere addition of
`
`displaying data on a generic GUI, Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1370.
`
`The claimed GUI is unlike the generic GUIs mentioned in other cases, such
`
`as Mortgage Grader or Capital One. Id. at 1365. In Mortgage Grader, the Federal
`
`Circuit found a claim to a “computer-implemented system” comprising a “first
`
`interface” and a “second interface” was directed to generic computer components.
`
`Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1318, 1324-25. In Capital One, the claims were
`
`ineligible because they merely recited a generic webpage and that via that webpage
`
`information was displayed or customized. 792 F.3d at 1370. The patentee in
`
`15
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Capital One agreed that its claims were directed to the practice of customizing
`
`information, a “fundamental… practice long prevalent in our system.” Id. at 1369.
`
`Accordingly, such recitations were merely “generic” GUIs. Id. at 1368.
`
`In contrast, the claims here are directed to the claimed GUI construction.
`
`Rather than taking a fundamental practice and simply reciting “displaying with a
`
`GUI” or “allowing a change with the GUI,” the claims recite how information is
`
`displayed via the GUI in combination with specific features that define how a user
`
`can interact with the GUI in a way that improves the operation of the GUI and,
`
`therefore, the computer.
`
`As discussed below, the claimed invention went against conventional
`
`wisdom at the time of the invention. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent
`
`establish that consideration of the unconventionality of the claims is relevant to the
`
`determination of eligibility. The Federal Circuit has maintained this position in
`
`the only two cases where it found patent-eligible claims: Enfish LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016), and DDR
`
`Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the
`
`claimed invention is patent eligible.
`
`16
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`B.
`
`The Claims Pass Part 2 of Alice Because They Recite an Inventive
`Concept
`
`While the inventive concept analysis “is facilitated by considerations
`
`analogous to those of §§ 102 and 103,” it is not a substitute for those statutory
`
`requirements. See Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343,
`
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This is because, rather than requiring novelty or
`
`nonobviousness, the concern undergirding § 101 is preemption of fundamental
`
`concepts. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358. Thus, to pass Alice prong 2, a claim need
`
`only contain elements “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
`
`significantly more than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id. at 2355.
`
`For computer-implemented inventions, this prong focuses on whether the
`
`claims recite something more than limiting the abstract idea to a generic computer
`
`environment or components. The courts make that determination based on whether
`
`the claimed combination comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high
`
`level of generality,” id. at 2357 (emphasis added), unrelated to the problem being
`
`solved (i.e., pre-solution or post-solution activities), Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at
`
`*7. For example, indisputably known computing elements and functions, such as
`
`“a computer,” a “memory,” a “CPU,” or generic “processing,” “displaying,”
`
`“storing,” fall within this exclusion. E.g., Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324; cf.
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 109 F. Supp. 3d 916, 942 (W.D. Tex.
`
`17
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`2015) (“Trading Techs. is distinguishable because unlike in the instant case, the
`
`[’304 and ’132 patents]… explained the ‘how’ and ‘specific functionality’ of the
`
`graphical user interface resulting in a technological improvement. As explained
`
`above, the claims of the [patent] present the graphical user interface as merely a
`
`generic computer component.”). But claims to a solution resting in claimed
`
`computer functionality are patent eligible, DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257, even if
`
`implemented on a general-purpose computer, Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *7.
`
`Here, the claims clearly recite significantly more for three, compounding
`
`reasons. First, the claimed combination specifies the GUI features and
`
`functionality with great detail rather than at a high level of generality. Second, the
`
`claimed combination of GUI features and functionality is the solution rather than
`
`pre-solution or post-solution activity. Third, there is no evidence that the claimed
`
`combination of GUI functionality was routine and conventional, because they were
`
`not. Indeed, even if some features were known, that fails to establish that the
`
`combination was routine and conventional. See DDR, 773 F.3d at 1250, 1252-53,
`
`1258-59.
`
`Further, combining known features is a way that allegedly produces a
`
`“predictable” result is not a § 101 analysis, but instead falls under § 103.
`
`Petitioners’ attempt to rely on its obviousness arguments to show that the claimed
`
`combination was routine and conventional is improper. See Pet. 21-22.
`
`18
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Even if TT’s claims were improperly viewed as being directed to an abstract
`
`idea, they pass Alice prong two because they recite an inventive concept, i.e., “an
`
`element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
`
`practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
`
`itself.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). Claims that
`
`solve technological problems, “improve the functioning of [a] computer itself,” or
`
`“effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field” likely meet this
`
`test. Id. at 2351.
`
`The claims here, read as a whole, solve technological problems that existed
`
`only in the realm of electronic trading with respect to prior art GUIs. Specifically,
`
`TT’s claims recite structural details of a specific GUI that functions differently
`
`from prior art GUIs to solve GUI-centric problems. The solution to these problems
`
`is not only rooted in computer technology, but is new computer technology itself: a
`
`new GUI with the claimed structure, make-up, and functionality. Thus, the claims
`
`here would meet a stringent technological-arts test, as well as satisfy the test that
`
`they be “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
`
`problem specifically arising in the realm of computer[s].” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.
`
`Petitioners’ assertion that the claimed GUI is only about aesthetics is facially
`
`wrong. Multiple experts agree that GUI design is a technological field and that the
`
`claims are directed to a technological improvement in that field. Ex.2168, ¶39;
`
`19
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Ex.2174, ¶12. This includes Roman, who agrees that the claimed invention solves
`
`the problem of a user missing their intended price. Ex.2166, 177:6-182:3. The
`
`reason the claimed construction of a GUI is viewed as better from the user’s
`
`perspective lies in the science of human-computer interactions. Ex.2168, ¶42;
`
`Ex.2174, ¶¶12, 15, 16, 23, 27-33. The experts confirm that, because the user’s
`
`mental activities are not claimed, the claimed GUI construction is not directed to a
`
`user’s decision-making process on when to place a trade or automating the user’s
`
`decision-making process. Ex.2168, ¶35; Ex.2174, ¶¶27-33.
`
`Like DDR, the claims here cannot be conceptually separated from the
`
`technological environment in which they exist. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. For
`
`instance, the claims here do not “merely recite the performance of some business
`
`practice known from” before computers “along with the requirement to perform it
`
`on” a computer. Id. The claims do more than simply make use of generic computer
`
`components. Instead, they provide a new technological tool. Compare Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2359 with DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.
`
`TT’s claims are more technological than those found to be eligible in DDR.
`
`The claims found to be eligible in DDR, which were directed to the problem of
`
`retaining website visitors, recited far less detail regarding computer technology
`
`than the claims here. 773 F.3d at 1248-49. The claims merely recited storing
`
`“visually perceptible elements” corresponding to websites and displaying such
`
`20
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`elements “visually corresponding to the source page.” Id. at 1249-50. The claims
`
`did not require any more particular details about what is displayed. The court
`
`found that a claim need not recite an invention that is “technologically complex” to
`
`be patent eligible. Id. at 1259.
`
`The claims are agnostic as to whether the GUI runs on a desktop, a laptop, or
`
`an iPhone (or any other terminal). And any argument that the mere use of the
`
`invention on a computer should render the claims ineligible