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
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`_____________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID RHO IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,772,132
`
`
`IBG 1006
`CBM of U.S. Pat. No. 6,772,132
`
`
`_____________________
`
`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
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`_____________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID RHO IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,772,132
`
`
`IBG 1006
`CBM of U.S. Pat. No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`I, David Rho declare as follows:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`1.
`
`I have been engaged by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on
`
`behalf of Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group,
`
`Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., and IBFX,
`
`Inc., for the above-captioned covered business method review proceeding. I
`
`understand that this proceeding involves United States Patent 6,772,132, entitled
`
`“Click based trading with intuitive grid display of market depth,” by Gary Allan
`
`Kemp, II, filed June 9, 2000, issued August 3, 2004, (the “’132 Patent”). I
`
`understand that the ’132 Patent is currently assigned to Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“TT”).
`
`2.
`
`I understand the ’132 Patent claims benefit from U.S. provisional
`
`application 60/186,322. For purposes of the covered business method review, I
`
`assume the earliest possible priority date of the ’132 Patent is the March 2, 2000
`
`filing date of U.S. provisional application 60/186,322.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the ’132
`
`Patent. I understand that the ’132 Patent has been provided as Exhibit 1001. I will
`
`cite to the specification using the following format (’132 Patent, 1:1-10). This
`
`example citation points to the ’132 Patent specification at column 1, lines 1-10.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of the ’132 Patent.
`
`I understand that the file history has been provided as Exhibits 1002-1005.
`
`5.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art used
`
`in the Petition for Covered Business Method Review of the ’132 Patent:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”), Exhibit
`
`1010;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman ”), Exhibit
`
`1011;
`
` WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. (“Belden”), Exhibit 1012;
`
` CA Publication No. CA 2,305,736 to May (“May”), Exhibit 1013;
`
` A certified translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”); I understand that the original
`
`Japanese language document was provided as Exhibit 1016, the
`
`certified translation provided as Exhibit 1017, and the certification of
`
`translation provided as Exhibit 1018; and
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”), Exhibit 1030.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`6. A complete listing of additional materials considered and relied upon in
`
`preparation of my declaration is provided as Exhibit 1028 to this declaration. I
`
`have relied on these materials to varying degrees. Citations to these materials that
`
`appear below are meant to be exemplary, but not exhaustive.
`
`7. The ’132 Patent describes electronic trading, using a graphical user
`
`interface (“GUI”) “for displaying the market depth of a commodity” and placing
`
`orders on an electronic exchange. (’132 Patent, 3:11-13.) I am familiar with the
`
`technology described in the ’132 Patent as of the earliest possible priority date of
`
`the ’132 Patent (March 2, 2000).
`
`8.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights and
`
`opinions regarding the ’132 Patent and the above-noted references that form the
`
`basis for the grounds of rejection set forth in the Petition for the Covered Business
`
`Method Review of the ’132 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1. See my Curriculum Vitae, attached as Exhibit 1027, for a listing of my
`
`qualifications.
`
`2. My expertise qualifies me to do the type of analysis required in this
`
`case.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`3.
`
`I have graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`(“MIT”) in 1992 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science with Electrical
`
`Engineering.
`
`4.
`
`In the 1990’s, I worked as a Manager of an Educational Computing
`
`Facility at MIT, where I created a website having a GUI front end and a database
`
`back end, for receiving, storing, and displaying data.
`
`5.
`
` From November 11, 1999 to March, 2001, I worked at marchFIRST in
`
`New York, New York as a Consultant and Manager. At marchFIRST, I worked on
`
`trading applications, such as implementing a distributed messaging system for
`
`fixed income products for a major market data provider. I also designed a trading
`
`system for a pan-European stock exchange.
`
`6. From March 2001 I have been working as a partner at MMG Partners in
`
`New York, New York. At MMG Partners, I have engaged in numerous trading
`
`related projects. I designed the front and back office system for four independent
`
`broker dealers, determined product offering gaps for a trading system and market
`
`data firm for a client as opposed the client's competitions, and advised numerous
`
`sell-side and buy-side companies of ways to reduce their market data spending.
`
`7. While at MMG Partners, I have advised a broker/dealer on which order
`
`management system would meet their business requirements.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`8. Also while at MMG Partners, I have performed due diligence on the
`
`NYMEX futures exchange with a large private equity firm and a venture capital
`
`firm. I analyzed the trading system from a functional and technical perspective.
`
`9. Also while at MMG Partners, I worked on an IT benchmarking study
`
`for Deutsche Bourse. This study involved analyzing benchmarks from Deutsche
`
`Bourse, Deutsche Bourse Clearing, CBOT, CBOE, CME, Philadelphia Stock
`
`Exchange, Swiss Stock Exchange, OMX, Milan Stock Exchange, CME Clearing
`
`and OCC. As part of this study, I normalized benchmark results across disparate
`
`trading system platforms and architectures.
`
`10. While at MMG Partners, I have also advised Dr. Moses Ma, who was
`
`engaged as an expert witness in a lawsuit involving U.S. Patent No. 6,618,707. The
`
`nature of my advisement was research and analysis regarding refuting invalidity
`
`claims and proving infringement.
`
`11. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit 1027, which contains
`
`further details on my education, experience, publications, and other qualifications
`
`to render an expert opinion. My work on this case is being billed at a rate of
`
`$500.00 per hour, with reimbursement for actual expenses. My compensation is
`
`not contingent upon the outcome of this covered business method review or the
`
`litigation involving the ’132 Patent.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`II. MY UNDERSTANDING OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`12. I understand that, during a covered business method review, claims are
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as
`
`would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF OBVIOUSNESS
`13. I am not a lawyer and will not provide any legal opinions. Although I
`
`am not a lawyer, I have been advised certain legal standards are to be applied by
`
`technical experts in forming opinions regarding meaning and validity of patent
`
`claims.
`
`14. I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time of the
`
`purported invention, which is often considered the time the application was filed.
`
`This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot be found in a
`
`single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the claim can still be
`
`invalid.
`
`15. As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I considered the
`
`following:
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
` the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
` the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
` the sophistication of the technology.
`
`16. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have, as of the priority
`
`date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an
`
`invention is obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`17. I understand that to prove that prior art or a combination of prior art
`
`renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to (1) identify the particular references
`
`that, singly or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify
`
`which elements of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and
`
`(3) explain how the prior art references could have been combined in order to
`
`create the inventions claimed in the asserted claim.
`
`18. I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include:
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others
`
`in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and
`
`the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`19. Based on the considerations I listed above, I conclude that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (i.e., in the March 2,
`
`2000 timeframe) would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in
`
`Computer Science or Computer Engineering and at least two years of work
`
`experience designing and/or programming graphical user interfaces, and direct or
`
`indirect experience with trading or related systems. This description is
`
`approximate, and a higher level of education or skill might make up for less
`
`education and vice versa.
`
`V. THE ’132 PATENT
`A. Claim Construction
`20. As part of my analysis, I have construed the following terms in light of
`
`the specification of the ’132 Patent:
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`21. Working Order: The ’132 Patent specification does not provide a
`
`definition for the term “working order.” However, a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention (“PHOSITA”) would understand, in view of
`
`the ’132 Patent specification, that a working order indicates the number of lots that
`
`are in the market, but have not been filled. (’132 Patent, 7:60-63.)(“The number
`
`next to W indicates the number of the trader’s ordered lots that are in the market,
`
`but have not been filled—i.e. the system is working on filling the order.”)
`
`22. Predetermined Fixed Offset: The ’132 Patent specification describes
`
`but does not actually define this term. “Choosing ‘Offset’ in this field will enable
`
`the L/R buttons of cell 1010.” (Id. at 8:29-30.) The “L and R fields in cell 1010
`
`indicate a quantity value, which may be added to the order quantity” when the
`
`order is entered. (Id. at 8:5-7.) Based on the above definition, Petitioners propose
`
`an offset be a quantity value, positive, negative or zero, which is predetermined in
`
`advance and may be added to an order quantity when the order is entered.
`
`23. Exchange Order Book: The ’132 Patent specification describes “order
`
`books” as listing “the client’s active orders in the market; that is, those orders that
`
`have neither been filled nor cancelled.” (Id. at 4:38-42.) The ’132 Patent
`
`specification also states “Market Depth represents the order book with the current
`
`bid and ask prices and quantities in the market.” (Id. at 4:54-55.) Thus, a
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`PHOSITA would have understood the term “order book” to mean a collection of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`orders (e.g., bids and asks) that are active in the market.
`
`VI. SILVERMAN, GUTTERMAN, AND BELDEN
`A. Overview
`24. Silverman, like the ’132 Patent, is directed to a “computerized
`
`exchange” for “trading various trading instruments.” (Silverman, 4:57-5:3.) FIG. 1
`
`of Silverman (reproduced below) depicts a functional block diagram of a trading
`
`system. As illustrated in FIG. 1 (reproduced below), Silverman discloses a host or
`
`central system 20. The host system executes trades by matching active bids and
`
`offers sent from client sites. (Id. at 2:65-68; 5:7-11; 5:32-46.) The keystations 24,
`
`located at the client sites and connected to the central system via a network, are
`
`used to transmit bids and offers for the various trading instruments to the central
`
`system. (Id. at 2:65-3:14, 5:20-32.) A keystation 24 is utilized by a trader. And
`
`since the ’132 Patent states that a commodity includes “anything that can be traded
`
`with quantities and/or prices” (’132 Patent, 1:17-18.), a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood Silverman’s “trading instruments” to be commodities.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`25. The host system 20 also maintains a “host book data base comprising
`
`all of the active bids and offers in the system by trading instrument.” (Silverman,
`
`2:66-68.) As explained by Silverman, the host book “contains detailed information
`
`from each client site on the particulars of each bid or offer.” (Id. at 8:38-40.) Thus,
`
`the host book includes the market depth (the current bid and ask prices and
`
`quantities in the market) for a commodity. Similarly, each keystation 24 maintains
`
`a keystation book for each instrument being actively traded. (Id. at 10:15-25,
`
`10:56-61.) The information used in the keystation book is used “to generate
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`displays at the keystations.” (Silverman, 8:14-18.) FIG. 5 of Silverman (which is
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`reproduced below) illustrates a typical keystation book.
`
`
`26. The keystation book is “a subset of the system or central station or host
`
`book . . . .” (Id. at 8:13-14.) Keystation books are initially received from and
`
`continuously updated by the central system 20. (Id. at 3:46-4:10; 5:7-19; 5:37-49
`
`(“real-time updates”); 7:56-8:61; 10:15-25.) The depth of display for a commodity
`
`on a keystation is controlled by the host computer that determines the maximum
`
`possible display depth for the keystation book and the keystation which may
`
`further control the information displayed. (Id. at 8:21-35.) A PHOSITA would
`
`recognize that if the keystation can display a subset of the display depth, by
`
`definition a subset can be the same as the entire set, which would include the entire
`
`market depth for a commodity on the display.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`27. In Silverman, a trader places an order “through data entry using a
`
`conventional keyboard, pointing device such as a mouse or any other conventional
`
`data entry tool.” (Id. at 5:25-32.) Silverman does not provide any further details on
`
`order entry.
`
`28. Gutterman provides a GUI displaying order icons representing bids or
`
`asks at a specific price level. (Gutterman, FIG. 2b (which is reproduced below).)
`
`“Buy orders [bids] are represented in the deck pane as blue square shapes, and sell
`
`orders [asks] are represented as red circles, both of which include indications of the
`
`quantities of the orders represented.” (Id. at 12:21-24.)
`
`
`
`29. Each order icon in Gutterman is “active.” That is, when the user selects
`
`the order icon, the system performs one or more actions – such as populating an
`
`electronic message with an “order’s quantity, price and time stamp.” (Id. at 13:29-
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`31.) A trader may immediately transmit this electronic message to another party by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`pressing another “active” button – the “SEND” button. (Id. at 13:29-43 (“In
`
`periods of heavy market activity . . . .”).)
`
`30. As described in further detail below, a PHOSITA would have been
`
`motivated to use the “active” order icons of Gutterman in the keystation display of
`
`Silverman to permit a trader to place orders. FIG. A includes my edits of FIG. 1 of
`
`Silverman to add the order icon interface of Gutterman to the keystation display of
`
`Silverman.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`FIGURE A
`
`31. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman fails to disclose selecting
`
`an area of the GUI through a single action “to set a plurality of additional
`
`parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic
`
`exchange,” as claimed. Single-action order entry was a well-known concept in the
`
`field of GUIs, including in GUIs for trading commodities, well before the earliest
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`possible priority date of the ’132 Patent. Belden describes such a system and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`method that is in the same field as Silverman and Gutterman.
`
`32. Belden teaches an electronic system for trading commodities that
`
`“replicate[s] the action which occurs in real commodity trading pits.” (Belden at
`
`0007.) Belden’s system includes “a host processor which selectively communicates
`
`with a plurality of user terminals, each user terminal including a selectively
`
`partitionable display by which information is conveyed to a user and means for
`
`entering information by which the user participates in the market,” such as “a
`
`keyboard and hand-held mouse.” (Id. at 0011.) The user’s terminal’s “display
`
`identifies active traders by displaying a separate symbol or icon for each, e.g.,
`
`either a blue square for those bidding to buy contracts or a red oval for those
`
`offering to sell.” (Id.) As shown in Belden’s FIG. 2b, “the quantity of each trader’s
`
`bid or offer is listed within each icon, as is each trader’s badge acronym.” (Id. at
`
`0011, 0026-27.)
`
`33. Belden’s user terminals support single-action order entry: “Trading is
`
`done by using the mouse to move a cursor onto the icon of a trader and pushing a
`
`button, i.e., ‘clicking’ on the icon.” (Id. at 0012.) For example, “[t]o hit a bid or
`
`take an offer in MAR89 bonds (abbreviated ‘USH’)” using the mouse, a trader
`
`would “enter [an] amount (if less than what icon is showing), point and click on
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`icon with mouse in the appropriate partition.” (Id. at 0033.) Based on Belden’s
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`statement. “if less than what icon is showing,” a PHOSITA would have understood
`
`the step of “enter amount” is optional, i.e., a trader could point and click on an icon
`
`without entering an amount in order to place an order for the quantity shown in the
`
`icon. For example, a trader could point and click on icon 205-2 to purchase 50
`
`contracts from DAS at the current offer price of 11. This example illustrates that
`
`selecting an area of Belden’s trading arena (order entry region) using a mouse sets
`
`a plurality of trade parameters (e.g., price, quantity, trader partner’s name) and
`
`sends the trade order.
`
`34. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement Belden’s single-
`
`action order entry techniques in the combination GUI of Silverman and Gutterman
`
`to reduce the amount of time needed to place an order and reduce the number of
`
`operator actions that are required to place the order, thus reducing the opportunity
`
`for operator error.
`
`B. Claims 3, 10, and 16
`35. Claims 3, 10, and 16 recite “the trade order is for a pre-determined
`
`fixed quantity and for a price corresponding to the position of the pointer at the
`
`time of said single action.” The combination of Silverman and Gutterman
`
`discloses that the trade order is “for a price corresponding to the position of the
`
`pointer at the time of said single action”: “the order . . . appears in the deck pane
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`under the appropriate price type at the appropriate price level.” (Gutterman, 12:18-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`21; see also id. at 12:25-40.)
`
`36. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman does not explicitly teach
`
`that the trade order is “for a pre-determined fixed quantity.” Belden teaches that
`
`“the trade order is for a pre-determined fixed quantity.” As explained, Belden
`
`discloses that clicking on a trader’s icon, which includes the quantity of the bid or
`
`offer, in the trading arena hits a bid at the current bid price or takes an offer at the
`
`current ask price. (Belden at 0011, 0033, FIG. 2b.) A PHOSITA would have
`
`understood that a trader could point and click on an icon without entering an
`
`amount in order to place an order for the quantity shown in the icon. In this case,
`
`the quantity in the trader’s icon is a pre-determined fixed quantity.
`
`C. Claims 5, 12, and 18
`37. The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden discloses that
`
`“the trade order is for a quantity equal to a pre-determined fixed offset plus the
`
`sum of all quantities in the market at prices better than or equal to a price
`
`corresponding to the position of the pointer at the time of said single action and for
`
`a price corresponding to said position,” as recited in claims 5, 12, and 18.
`
`38. Gutterman discloses that the GUI that results from the combination of
`
`Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden (“the combination GUI”) may be touch
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`sensitive over a large portion of its display. (Gutterman, 14:39-47, FIG. 2b.) FIG.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`2b of Gutterman illustrates “a plurality of order-total displays 133 disposed around
`
`the periphery” of the GUI. (Id. at 12:46-48.) “Each order-total display 133
`
`corresponds to a respective price tick 136 and displays the total of orders in the
`
`deck at and better than its respective price tick.” (Id. at 14:48-50.) Gutterman does
`
`not expressly disclose that the order-total displays are buttons that can be activated
`
`by the trader/broker. But it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to make the
`
`order-total displays touch sensitive (or otherwise selectable) buttons, in the same
`
`manner that the order icons are touch sensitive (or otherwise selectable), that could
`
`be used to quickly buy or sell all outstanding orders at and below a certain price
`
`(for buy orders) or at and above a certain price (for sell orders). The trade just
`
`described is well-known in the trading community as a limit or better order. I will
`
`refer to a limit or better order as a “sweep order.” The example that follows will
`
`help illustrate. FIG. 2b of Gutterman is reproduced in-part below.
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`39. In this example, the figure reproduced in-part represents the display of
`
`the combination GUI of Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden. The top “order-total
`
`display” on the “sell” side indicates that there is a total quantity of 100 for the price
`
`of 98 and 31/32 and better. A trader that intends to purchase all of those orders – to
`
`sweep the market – would have to select each of the five order icon on the sell side
`
`unless there was a mechanism for purchasing all at once. In a fast moving market,
`
`it may be very difficult to select all five order icons without another trader
`
`interfering. Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to implement the
`
`order-total displays as buttons that could be used to for sweep orders.
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`40. Additionally, one of the defining characteristics of an electronic
`
`exchange is that traders can access and trade on the exchange from many different
`
`geographic locations. Some traders establish trading sites in close physical
`
`proximity to the exchange, while others trade from locations that are further
`
`removed. The further the trading site is from the exchange, the further the market
`
`information being supplied by the exchange is required to travel – over cables,
`
`through routing machines, perhaps over entire continents – before it can be
`
`received, analyzed, and acted on. In my experience, some traders will receive
`
`information from the exchange one or two seconds slower than traders that are
`
`located at or near the exchange. While one or two seconds may not seem like a
`
`much, in the world of high-speed, high-frequency trading, it is a very long time. A
`
`PHOSITA would have known about and understood the system limitations of the
`
`computing devices used to participate in the electronic exchange.
`
`41. With this in mind, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to build an
`
`adjustable offset into the sweep button that was just described in order to account
`
`for market variance caused by time delay. For example, within the one or two
`
`second time delay that a geographically distant trader may encounter, the market
`
`information may change without the trader knowing (see Belden at 0025.) – more
`
`bids or asks may be sent to the market at a price within the trader’s desired sweep.
`
`Thus, a PHOSITA would have used an offset to allow a trader to account for any
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`variance in the market between the time that he/she receives the latest market
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`information and places a sweep order.
`
`D. Claims 6, 13, and 19
`42. Building on the discussion of claims 5, 12, and 18, it would have been
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA to use more than one offset, such as a positive and a
`
`negative offset having a same default quantity, so that a trader would be able to
`
`quickly respond to the market if they sensed a shift in one direction or the other
`
`while performing a sweep order. Further, it was well known prior to the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’132 Patent to use right and left mouse buttons to carry
`
`out different actions. (Cooper (Ex. 1022) at 200-02.) Thus, it would have been
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA to assign different offsets to the right and left mouse
`
`buttons, such as positive and negative offsets, respectively. For these reasons, it is
`
`my opinion that the combination GUI of Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden
`
`discloses that the “offset is equal to a first pre-determined value if a single action
`
`of a first type is taken and said offset is equal to a second pre-determined value if a
`
`single action of a second type is taken,” as recited in claims 6, 13, and 19.
`
`E. Claims 25, 26, 35, 36, 45 and 46
`43. Claims 25, 35, and 45 recite “dynamically displaying working orders in
`
`alignment with the prices corresponding thereto.” Claims 26, 36, and 46 recite
`
`“dynamically displaying entered orders in alignment with the prices corresponding
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`
`thereto, wherein said entered orders indicate a quantity of said commodity for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`which a trader’s orders have been filled at said corresponding prices.” The
`
`combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden render these limitations
`
`obvious.
`
`44. Belden discloses that an order icon “includes a member’s identifying
`
`acronym and the number of contracts he/she is offering.” (Belden at 0026.) “Figure
`
`2b represents a possible trading screen for a hypothetical Member TCO.” (Id. at
`
`0033.) As shown in FIG. 2b of Belden, the GUI displays TCO’s working orders
`
`(i.e., indicating the number of lots that are in the market, but have not been filled)
`
`at graphical locations associated with the trade price—e.g., TCO is offering 50
`
`contracts of “USH” at a price of “11,” bidding for 25 contracts of “USM” at a
`
`price of “09,” and offering 50 contracts of “USH-USM” at a price of “13.” Thus,
`
`Belden teaches “dynamically displaying working orders in [association] with the
`
`prices corresponding thereto.”
`
`45. Belden also discloses a personal trade summary box that displays a
`
`summary of the member’s trades. (Id. at 0030, FIG. 3 (“207-1”).) For example, the
`
`trade summary box of FIG. 3 indicates that the trader acquired (“+”) 100 contracts
`
`of “USZ” at a price of “09” from member “BJG.” Thus, Belden teaches
`
`“dynamically displaying entered orders in [associated] with the prices
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`
`corresponding thereto, wherein said entered orders indicate a quantity of said
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`commodity for which a trader’s orders have been filled at said corresponding
`
`prices.”
`
`46. Implementing Belden’s techniques for displaying a trader’s working
`
`and entered orders in the combination GUI of Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden
`
`would result in the working and entered orders being aligned with the price levels
`
`of Gutterman’s price column. Again, Gutterman discloses plotting bid and ask
`
`order icons along a price axis. (Gutterman, 12:1-56, FIG. 2b.) Since the
`
`combination GUI displays market depth, (Silverman, 8:14-30 (display depth of
`
`keystation book); Gutterman, FIG. 2b,) it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA
`
`to display the working orders and entered orders disclosed by Belden aligned with
`
`the price axis disclosed by Gutterman to indicate on the display which of the
`
`outstanding orders were placed by the particular trader using the workstation and
`
`the status of those orders so that the trader could easily recognize and track his/her
`
`orders at various price levels.
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`47. Gutterman supports this position by suggesting that “[o]ne of the skills
`
`of a broker is in knowing his deck [i.e., working orders].”1 (Gutterman, 3:14.)
`
`Gutterman appreciated that it was difficult for a trader to remember all of his/her
`
`working orders and the status of those orders, especially in times of heavy market
`
`activity. (See id. at 3:23-24 (“Occasionally, the decks are as much as an inch thick
`
`and require great memory skill and anticipatory planning.”).) Gutterman sought to
`
`alleviate this burden on the trader’s memory by “allow[ing] the broker to manage
`
`. . . orders more efficiently” through rapid organization and presentation of this
`
`information on a display in a manner that could be quickly observed and easily
`
`understood. (Id. at 6:37-40, 6:51-55.) As described above, Gutterman displayed the
`
`order information against a price axis to help achieve this goal. (Id. at FIG. 2b.)
`
`Based on these teachings, a PHOSITA would also have appreciated the importance
`
`of indicating on the display the trader’s working orders and the status of those
`
`orders. Additionally, a PHOSITA would have understood that plotting the trader’s
`
`working orders against the price axis would have allowed the trader to quickly
`
`observe the prices that his/her orders were working at.
`
`1 A broker is a type of trader. For a broker, “the deck is a stack of orders that
`
`are to be executed by the broker.” (Gutterman, 3:15-16.) In other words, the
`
`broker’s deck represents his/her “working orders.”
`
`- 25 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`48. Thus, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA
`
`to “dynamically display[] working orders in alignment with the prices
`
`corresponding thereto,” as recited in claims 25, 35, and 45. And, for the reasons
`
`stated, it would have been would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to
`
`“dynamically display[] entered orders in alignment with the prices corresponding
`
`thereto, wherein said entered orders indicate a quantity of said commodity for
`
`which a trader’s orders have been filled at said corresponding prices,” as recited
`
`in claims 26, 36, and 46.
`
`49. U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist, which was filed on April 15, 1999,
`
`provides further evidence that it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to
`
`additionally indicate on the display which of the outstanding orders were made by
`
`the particular trader and the status of those orders. FIG. 6 of Buist, reproduced
`
`below, illustrates “a visual quote and order book display.” (Buist, 12:8.) The
`
`column labeled 684 is a price column. (Id. at 12:51-52.) On either side of the price
`
`column has two columns labeled “Your Orders.” These columns are disposed on
`
`either side of a price column 684. (Id. at 12:52-54.) “The ‘Limit Qty.’ and ‘AON
`
`Qty.’ columns list the size of orders at each price level posted into the system by
`
`other users.” (Id. at 12:54-56.) And in support of the position
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
