`
`
`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
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSNIESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`Mandatory Notices ......................................................................................... 2 
`Grounds For Standing ..................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Petitioners’ certification ........................................................................ 3 
`B. 
`The ’132 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent ........................ 3 
`1. 
`The ’132 patent claims a covered business method ................... 3 
`2. 
`The ’132 patent is not for a “technological invention” .............. 4 
`3. 
`AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review ................. 8 
`Identification of the Challenge ..................................................................... 10 
`A.  Grounds of Unpatentability and Prior Art ........................................... 10 
`B. 
`Each Ground is independently relevant and should be instituted ....... 11 
`IV.  The ʼ132 Patent ............................................................................................. 13 
`A. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) .................................... 13 
`B. 
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 13 
`V.  Ground 1 – Claims 1-56 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............... 14 
`A. 
`Current state of § 101 jurisprudence ................................................... 15 
`B. 
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of placing an order based
`on observed (plotted) market information, as well as updating market
`information (Alice Step 1) ................................................................... 16 
`Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite only insignificant post-
`solution activity and data gathering (Alice Step 2) ............................. 18 
`The claims are not rooted in computer technology ............................. 24 
`D. 
`TT v. CQG is not controlling precedent .............................................. 26 
`E. 
`VI.  Ground 2: Silverman, Gutterman, & Belden render claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-16,
`18-23, 25-33, 35-43, and 45-56 obvious. ..................................................... 26 
`A.  Overview of Silverman ....................................................................... 27 
`B. 
`Overview of Gutterman ....................................................................... 28 
`C. 
`Overview of Belden ............................................................................ 29 
`D. 
`Rationale to combine Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden .................. 31 
`E. 
`Prosecution history relative to Silverman & Gutterman ..................... 32 
`
`C. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`Independent claims 1, 8, & 14 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman,
`and Belden. .......................................................................................... 34 
`1. 
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman teaches the
`preambles of claims 1, 8, & 14 ................................................ 34 
`Belden teaches the “setting a preset parameter” limitation .... 37 
`The Silverman combination GUI teaches the “displaying market
`depth of the commodity” limitation .......................................... 39 
`The Silverman combination GUI teaches the “displaying an
`order entry region” limitation .................................................. 43 
`The Silverman combination GUI teaches the “selecting a
`particular area” limitation ....................................................... 44 
`Claims 2, 9, & 15 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden .. 48 
`Claims 3, 10, & 16 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and
`Belden .................................................................................................. 48 
`Claims 5, 12, & 18 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and
`Belden .................................................................................................. 49 
`Claims 6, 13, & 19 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and
`Belden .................................................................................................. 51 
`Claim 7 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden .............. 52 
`Claims 20-21, 30-31, & 40-41 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman,
`and Belden ........................................................................................... 52 
`M.  Claims 22-23, 32-33, & 42-43 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman,
`and Belden ........................................................................................... 52 
`Claims 25-26, 35-36, & 45-46 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman,
`and Belden ........................................................................................... 53 
`Claims 27-28, 37-38, & 47-48 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman,
`and Belden ........................................................................................... 56 
`Claims 29, 39, & 49 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and
`Belden .................................................................................................. 56 
`Claims 50-52 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden .. 57 
`Claims 53-55 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden .. 57 
`Claims 56 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden .......... 58 
`
`Q. 
`R. 
`S. 
`
`K. 
`L. 
`
`N. 
`
`O. 
`
`P. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`VII.  Ground 3 – The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, Belden, and May
`render claims 4, 11 and 17 obvious .............................................................. 58 
`VIII.  Ground 4 – The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, Belden, and Paal
`renders claims 24, 34, and 44 obvious. ........................................................ 59 
`IX.  Ground 5 – TSE and Belden render claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-16, 20-28, 30-38,
`40-48, 50-56 obvious .................................................................................... 61 
`A.  Overview of TSE and Belden.............................................................. 61 
`B. 
`Rationale for combining TSE and Belden .......................................... 63 
`C. 
`Independent claims 1, 8, & 14 are obvious over TSE and Belden ..... 64 
`1. 
`TSE teaches the preambles of claims 1, 8, and 14 ................... 64 
`TSE teaches the “setting a preset parameter” limitation ........ 66 
`2. 
`TSE teaches “displaying market depth of the commodity” ...... 66 
`3. 
`TSE teaches “displaying an order entry region” ..................... 69 
`4. 
`The combination of TSE & Belden teaches “selecting a
`5. 
`particular area” ....................................................................... 69 
`Claims 2, 9, & 15 are obvious over TSE and Belden ......................... 72 
`D. 
`Claims 3, 10, & 16 are obvious over TSE and Belden ....................... 72 
`E. 
`Claim 7 is obvious over TSE and Belden ........................................... 73 
`F. 
`Claims 20-21, 30-31, & 40-41 are obvious over TSE and Belden ..... 73 
`G. 
`Claims 22, 32, & 42 are obvious over TSE and Belden ..................... 73 
`H. 
`Claims 23, 33, & 43 are obvious over TSE and Belden ..................... 74 
`I. 
`Claims 24, 34, & 44 are obvious over TSE and Belden ..................... 74 
`J. 
`Claims 25-26, 35-36, & 45-46 are obvious over TSE and Belden ..... 74 
`K. 
`Claims 27-28, 37-38, & 47-48 are obvious over TSE and Belden ..... 76 
`L. 
`M.  Claims 50-52 are obvious over TSE and Belden ................................ 76 
`N. 
`Claims 53-55 are obvious over TSE and Belden ................................ 76 
`O. 
`Claims 56 is obvious over TSE and Belden ........................................ 77 
`X.  Ground 6 – TSE, Belden, and May render claims 4, 11, & 17 obvious ....... 78 
`XI.  Ground 7 – TSE, Belden, and Gutterman render claims 5-6, 12-13, 18-19, 29,
`39, & 49 obvious........................................................................................... 79 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 5-6, 12-13, & 18-19 are obvious over TSE, Belden and
`Gutterman ............................................................................................ 79 
`Claims 29, 39, & 49 are obvious over TSE, Belden and Gutterman .. 80 
`B. 
`XII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 80 
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`Cases 
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................. passim
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 16
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................8, 21, 25, 26
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) .......................................................................................... 18
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 18
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 7, 17, 20
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com LP,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 24, 25
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005) ................................................................................................ 9
`In re Nuijten,
`550 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 18
`In re Swanson,
`540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 33
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch.,
`CBM2013-00049 (Paper 53, Mar. 2, 2015) .......................................................... 19
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 19, 21
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Causality Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012) .......................................................... 12
`Mayo Collab.Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .............. 16, 17, 22
`Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs.,
`132 S. Ct. 740 (2012) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`vi
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 14
`TT v. CQG,
`No. 05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) ............................................................. 26
`Ultramercial v. Hulu,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................... 16, 17, 19, 20
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
` No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2015) .................................................................. 4
`Xianli Zhang v. United States,
`640 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................... 1, 15, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................... 1, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................................... 34
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.501 ...................................................................................................... 34
`37 C.F.R. § 42.032 ...................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ........................................................................................... 4, 10
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011) ...................................................................... 10
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (Sept. 8, 2011) .................................................................. 9, 10
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 5
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Exh No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 to Kemp, II et al. (“ʼ132 patent”)
`1002
`File History of Application Ser. No. 09/590,692, which became the
`’132 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’132 Patent File His-
`tory”)
`Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(d) for Ser. No.
`09/590,692, filed August 21, 2000 (“Petition to Make Special”)
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, Control No.
`90/011,250, filed September 22, 2010 (“Reexam Request”)
`Order Denying Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,772,132, Control No. 90/011,250, mailed December 14, 2010 (“Or-
`der Denying Reexam Req.”)
`Expert Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Redacted Second Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas,
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., Case No.
`1:05-CV-04811 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2013) (“Thomas Report”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`1010
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`1011
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`1012 WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. (“Belden”)
`1013
`CA Publication No. CA 2,305,736 to May (“May”)
`1014
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`1015
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 to Hartman et al. (“Hartman”)
`1016
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guidelines,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “System for Buying and Selling Futures and
`Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE”)
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1017
`
`viii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1025
`1026
`
`Exh No. Description
`1018
`Certificate of Translation for “System for Buying and Selling Futures
`and Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE
`Certificate”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`David M. Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” 1993 (“Weiss”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design,”
`First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Ef-
`fective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998 (“Shnei-
`derman”)
`1024 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, pages 150 (“Mi-
`crosoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho (“Rho CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho (“Rho List of Materials”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 17 (“POPR”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 19 (“Ins. Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 29 (“Reh’g Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 32 (“POR”)
`
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`ix
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`1036
`
`Exh No. Description
`1035
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill.
`Feb. 24, 2015) (“TT v. CQG Slip. Op.”)
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc., 1985
`(“Inside Macintosh”)
`Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed,
`Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`
`
`1037
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc.,
`
`TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., and IBFX Inc., peti-
`
`tion for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Review of claims 1-56 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,772,132 (Ex. 1001, “’132 patent”) owned by Trading Technologies Interna-
`
`tional, Inc. (“TT”). This Petition demonstrates that claims 1-56 of the ’132 patent
`
`are more likely than not unpatentable.
`
`First, claims 1-56 are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
`
`each merely recites the abstract idea of placing an order based on observed
`
`(plotted) market information and updating market information. The claims repre-
`
`sent nothing more than the well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of
`
`displaying data on a computer, accepting an order and sending it to the exchange.
`
`Indeed, the PTAB previously instituted CBM review of the ’132 patent based on
`
`this abstract idea. (Ins. Dec. at 14 (Ex. 1032).) in CBM2014-00135. That CBM was
`
`terminated after joint motion by the parties prior to Final Written Decision.
`
`Second, claims 1-56 are also obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’132 pa-
`
`tent admits that its claimed graphical user interface (“GUI”) software can be im-
`
`plemented on any existing computer that can perform the claimed functions, which
`
`include plotting bids and asks along a static price axis and providing “single ac-
`
`tion” entry of trade orders. And, these functions were well known before the earli-
`
`est possible priority date of the ’132 patent. Prior art, such as Gutterman and TSE,
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`describe interfaces that display market information as claimed in the ’132 patent.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`TT conceded that single-action order entry was prior art. (POPR at 7 (Ex. 1031).)
`
`The Belden reference confirms TT’s concession. This Petition and its supporting
`
`evidence demonstrate that the claims of the ’132 patent merely utilize well-known
`
`and simple graphical user interface design techniques in a financial trading prod-
`
`uct. Petitioners therefore request that the PTAB institute trial on all Grounds.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`Real parties-in-interest: IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group,
`
`Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., IBFX, Inc.
`
`Related Matters: The ’132 patent is currently involved in the following proceed-
`
`ing that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: TT v. BGC
`
`Partners, Inc., et al., 1:10-cv-715 (N.D. Ill.) (1:10-cv-716, 1:10-cv-718, 1:10-cv-
`
`720, 1:10-cv-721, 1:10-cv-929, 1:10-cv-931, 1:10-cv-885, 1:10-cv-883, 1:10-cv-
`
`884, and 1:10-cv-882 consolidated therein); and 1:05-cv-5164 (now CAFC No. 15-
`
`1768)
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel: Petitioners appoint Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No.
`
`36,013) as its lead counsel, and Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) and Richard M.
`
`Bemben (Reg. No. 68,658) as its back-up counsel, all at: STERNE, KESSLER,
`
`GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005,
`
`phone no. (202)772-8997, facsimile (202)371-2540. Petitioners consent to service
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`by email at: rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com, lgordon-ptab@skgf.com, rbemben-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`PTAB@skgf.com, and PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II. Grounds For Standing
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners’ certification
`
`Petitioners certify that they meet the eligibility requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.032 because they were sued for infringement of the ’132 patent: TT v. IBG
`
`LLC, 1:10-cv-721 (N.D. Ill.); TT v. Tradestation Securities, Inc., 1:10-cv-884
`
`(N.D. Ill.). Petitioners also certify that they are not estopped or barred from filing
`
`this Petition—they have not been a party or a privy to a party in any post-grant
`
`proceeding of the ’132 patent, nor filed a civil action challenging any of its claims.
`
`B.
`
`The ’132 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`The ’132 patent is a CBM patent because it claims a method for trading a fi-
`
`nancial instrument and is not for a technological invention. In CBM2014-00135,
`
`the PTAB analyzed the ’132 patent and found it eligible for CBM review. And
`
`contrary to TT’s previous arguments, GUIs are not exempt from CBM review.
`
`1. The ’132 patent claims a covered business method
`
`A patent that claims a method for performing data processing in the practice,
`
`administration or management of a financial product or service is a CBM patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). In promulgating the final rules for CBM review, the Office
`
`explained that that “financial product or service” should be “interpreted broadly,”
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`encompassing patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Transitional Program
`
`for CBM Patents—Definitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`Federal Circuit upheld the Office’s interpretation in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v.
`
`SAP Am., Inc., No. 2014-1194, slip op. at 35-36 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2015).
`
`The ’132 patent meets this definition. Claim 1, e.g., recites a “method of
`
`placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange,” ’132 patent
`
`12:2-3, and “recites steps of displaying market information, including indicators of
`
`ask and bids in the market, and recites steps of setting trade parameters and send-
`
`ing a trade order to an electronic exchange,” (Ins. Dec. at 9). “Displaying market
`
`information and sending a trade order to an electronic exchange are activities that
`
`are financial in nature.” (Id.) And while a patent need only one claim directed to a
`
`CBM to be eligible for CBM review (id. at 8), all the claims qualify (see, e.g., ’132
`
`patent, claims 4-6 (trading strategies), 7 (canceling order), 8, 14).
`
`2. The ’132 patent is not for a “technological invention”
`
`The ’132 patent fails both prongs of the technological invention test of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The claims as a whole do not recite a technical feature that is
`
`novel and unobvious over the prior art, nor do they solve a technical problem using
`
`a technical solution. Instead, they attempt to solve a business problem by applying
`
`known GUI and display techniques on existing computer systems.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`a)
`
`The ’132 patent does not recite a technological feature that
`is novel and unobvious
`
`The claims of the ’132 patent do not recite a technical feature that is novel or
`
`unobvious over the prior art. In general, the claims recite trading software that is
`
`implemented on a conventional computer. Indeed, the patent admits “that the sys-
`
`tem of the present invention can be implemented on any existing . . . terminal or
`
`device with the processing capability to perform the functions described herein.”
`
`(’132 patent, 4:4-7.) Those functions are well-understood, routine, and convention-
`
`al steps of displaying market information graphically to a trader that enters buy and
`
`sell orders, and sending the trade orders to the exchange. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012) (neither the mere recitation of known technologies
`
`(computer hardware, software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, dis-
`
`play devices) nor reciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a
`
`process or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-obvious estab-
`
`lish a technological invention).
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites “[a] method of placing a trade order for a
`
`commodity on an electronic exchange . . . using a graphical user interface and a
`
`user input device.” The ’132 patent admits that at the time of the putative invention
`
`there were “[a]t least 60 exchanges throughout the world that utilize electronic
`
`trading in varying degrees to trade” commodities (’132 patent, 1:21-23), and that
`
`trading GUIs were known: “[exchange participants’ computers] use software that
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`creates specialized interactive trading screens on the traders’ desktops. The trading
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`screens enable traders to enter and execute trade orders, obtain market quotes, and
`
`monitor positions.” (Id. at 1:57-60.)
`
`Claim 1 also recites “displaying market depth . . . through a dynamic display
`
`of a plurality of bids[/asks] . . . aligned with a static display of prices” and “dis-
`
`playing an order entry region with the static display [of] prices . . . .” (Id. at 12:8-
`
`21.) But the patent admits that “everyone logged on to trade can receive [the bids
`
`and asks in the market]” (id. at 2:13-16), and prior art such as TSE and Gutterman
`
`demonstrate that aligning bids, asks, and an order entry region with a static price
`axis was well known (TSE at 0107 (Ex. 1017); Gutterman, FIG. 2b (Ex. 1011)).
`
`Regarding the “setting a preset parameter” and “single action” order entry
`
`limitations of claim 1, TT admitted these or similar features were known:
`
`Figure 2 [of the ’132 patent] provides an example of one partic-
`ular design of such a prior art style screen. . . . Some of these
`types of tools permitted “single action” order entry that consist-
`ed of a trader presetting a default quantity and then clicking on
`a cell in the screen (i.e., pressing a button on the tool) to cause a
`trade order message to be sent to the exchange at the preset
`quantity and at the price value associated with that cell.
`
`(POPR at 7.) TT’s expert, Christopher Thomas, verified these statements. (Thomas
`
`Rep. ¶ 20 (Ex. 1008).) And Belden and Hartman further demonstrate the conven-
`
`tionality of setting parameters and single-action order entry. (Belden at 0012, 0033
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1012); Hartman, 3:31-4:3 (“single-action ordering . . . reduces the number of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`purchaser interactions need to place an order”) (Ex. 1015).)
`
`Claim 1 illustrates that TT’s claims recite a few well-worn, routine, and
`
`conventional GUI features, each of which had already been implemented in other
`
`trading systems. (See POPR at 16 (TT admitting that “the ’132 patent . . . com-
`
`bined various features that were kept separate in the prior art”).) And each of these
`
`conventional features could have been implemented on a generic computer using
`
`generic GUI tools and programming languages. (Román Decl. ¶ 73 (Ex. 1007); Ins.
`
`Dec. at 11-12; ’132 patent, 4:4-7.) At best, TT rearranged prior art GUIs (such as
`
`FIG. 2 of the ’132 patent) to display bids and asks along a static price axis. But the
`
`prior art shows that this display configuration was well-known. (See, e.g., TSE at
`
`0107; Gutterman, FIG. 2b.) Simply rearranging the display of data is not even
`
`enough to confer patent eligibility, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, 654
`
`F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011), let alone to qualify as a technological invention.
`
`b)
`
`The ’132 patent does not solve a technical problem using a
`technical solution
`
`As the PTAB found in CBM2014-00135, the claims do not solve a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution. (Ins. Dec. at 11.) According to the ’132 patent,
`
`the “problem” with prior art trading GUIs was that the market price could change
`
`before a trader entered a desired order, causing the trader to “miss his price.” (’132
`
`patent, 2:53-63.) In CBM2014-00135, TT repeatedly stated that the ’132 patent
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`sought to overcome this problem, and that the ’132 patent made trading faster and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`help traders visualize information. (POPR at 8-10; POR at 5-6 (Ex. 1034); see also
`
`Thomas Tr. at 63 (traders would track inside market “in their head”) (Ex. 1009);
`
`Thomas Rep. ¶ 32 (“significantly reduces the mental calculations required by the
`
`preexisting systems”).) But, as the PTAB correctly found (twice), missing a trade
`
`price is not a technical problem. (Ins. Dec. at 11-12; Reh’g Dec. at 8 (Ex. 1033);
`
`see also Román Decl. ¶ 71.) And “accelerat[ing] an ineligible mental process does
`
`not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance
`
`Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Moreover, the ’132 patent’s solution is not technical. According to TT, trad-
`
`ers sacrificed accuracy for speed using conventional trading GUIs. (POPR at 8;
`
`POR at 5.) But TT did not design a more accurate mouse or a computer that re-
`
`sponded faster. Rather, TT’s non-technical solution was simply to rearrange how
`
`known and available market data is displayed on a GUI—albeit into a known dis-
`
`play configuration. TT’s solution may be aesthetic, but it is certainly not technical.
`
`(See Román Decl. ¶ 71.) Thus, the claims also fail the second prong of the techno-
`
`logical invention test, and the ’132 patent is eligible for CBM review.
`
`3. AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review
`
`TT previously argued for the creation of a GUI exception to the statute based
`
`on Senator Durbin’s statement regarding “novel software tools and graphical user
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`interfaces.” (POR at 43-44 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5402 at S5428 (Sept. 8, 2011).)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`But the legislative history is irrelevant here because the statute unambiguously
`
`lacks any such GUI exception. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545
`
`U.S. 546, 568 (2005) (“As we have repeatedly held, the authoritative statement is
`
`the statutory text, not the legislative history or any other extrinsic material.”);
`
`Xianli Zhang v. United States, 640 F.3d 1358, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (may refer to
`
`legislative history only if text of statute is ambiguous). As a result, TT’s cherry-
`
`picked quote from the legislative history does not alter the statute’s meaning. Mims
`
`v. Arrow Fin. Servs., 132 S. Ct. 740, 752 (2012) (“[T]he views of a single legisla-
`
`tor, even a bill’s sponsor, are not controlling.”). The Senator was merely express-
`
`ing his opinion over the statute’s reach and his hope that the Office would “keep
`
`[it] in mind” when it crafts the technological invention exception. (157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5433.) This is not sufficient to cast doubt on a properly promulgated regulation.
`
`But should the PTAB turn to the legislative history, claim 1 is squarely with-
`
`in Senator Schumer’s definition of a CBM because he expressly listed methods for
`
`“selling and trading financial instruments and other securities” such as those
`
`claimed here as falling within the definition of a CBM patent. 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5402 at S5432. Senator Schumer further explained that the “method or corre-
`
`sponding apparatus” in the statute’s CBM definition covers “[GUI] claims.” 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S1360 at S1364 (Mar. 8, 2011); see also 157 Cong. Rec. S5402 at
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`S5409, S5436-37 (Senator Schumer explaining that Congress is particularly con-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`cerned with patents relying on single- or double-clicking with a mouse). In short,
`
`the statute unambiguously gave the Office broad discretion to define the technolog-
`
`ical invention exception. AIA § 18(d)(2). And the Office did so, but without TT’s