Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 20
`Entered: April 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent No. 7,685,055 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 20
`Entered: April 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent No. 7,685,055 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC1 (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`
`filed a Petition (Paper 5, “Pet.”) on October 23, 2015, that requests review
`under the transitional program for covered business method patents of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,685,055 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’055 patent”). Trading
`Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response on February 2, 2016. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not
`that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–19 of the ’055
`patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103. We determine that the Petition
`demonstrates that it is more likely than not that challenged claims 1–19 are
`unpatentable, and we institute a covered business method patent review of
`claims 1–19 of the ’055 patent.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’055 patent is the subject of numerous related U.S. district court
`
`proceedings. Pet. 23; Paper 8, 2–8; Paper 17, 1.
`
`The ’055 patent was the subject of a petition for covered business
`method patent review in TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading
`Technologies International, Inc., CBM2014-00137 (PTAB). In CBM2014-
`
`
`1 This proceeding was terminated with respect to CQG, INC. and CQGT,
`LLC and they are no longer petitioners in this proceeding. See Paper 16.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`00137, covered business method patent review terminated prior to entry of a
`final written decision, due to settlement between the parties.
`Numerous patents are related to the ’055 patent and the related patents
`are or were the subject of numerous petitions for covered business method
`patent review and reexamination proceedings. The table in the attached
`appendix indicates the related patents and corresponding proceedings.
`
`
`C. The ’055 Patent
`The ’055 patent is titled “System and Method for Automatic Re-
`
`positioning of Market Information in a Graphical User Interface,” and issued
`March 23, 2010, from Application No. 11/417,547 filed May 3, 2006. Ex.
`1001, 1.
`The ’055 patent discloses a graphical user interface (“GUI”)
`displaying information related to a commodity and a method of
`automatically re-positioning the information. Id. at Abstract. The ’055
`patent’s Figure 16A is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 16A depicts the GUI of the ’055 patent.
`The GUI includes a plurality of columns, including a static price axis,
`which includes a plurality of price values for the commodity, such as
`“102.60.” Id. at Fig. 16A; col. 7, l. 67–col. 8, l. 18.
`Columns 1608 and 1610 are aligned with the static price axis and
`dynamically display buy (i.e., bid) quantities and sell (i.e., ask) quantities,
`respectively, for the corresponding price values of the static price axis. Id. at
`Fig. 16A; col. 26, ll. 10–11. Column 1602 displays the last traded price
`(“LTP”), and the inside market (i.e., the highest buy price and lowest sell
`price at which there is quantity currently in the market) is marked with
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`inside market indicator 1606, which is a solid line spanning columns 1608
`and 1610. Id. at Fig. 16A; col. 26, ll. 3–14.
`The GUI can re-position a designated item of interest, such as the LTP
`or inside market indicator, in the display. Id. at col. 26, ll. 4–45. For
`example, if the LTP or inside market moves a designated number of cells
`away from the top or bottom of the display screen, the display, including the
`static price axis, is repositioned so that LTP or inside market is centered on
`the display. See id. Manual re-positioning can also be used in conjunction
`with automatic re-positioning. Id. at col. 26, ll. 33–37.
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 17 of the ’055 patent are independent. Claim 1 recites a
`
`method, and claim 17 recites a corresponding computer readable medium.
`Claim 1 of the ’055 patent is illustrative of the challenged claims and is
`reproduced below, with some markings added in brackets.
`1. A method for re-positioning a static price axis on a graphical
`user interface for displaying market information of a
`commodity being traded at an electronic exchange, the method
`comprising:
`[A] receiving market information relating to a commodity from
`an electronic exchange via a computing device, the market
`information comprising an inside market with a current highest
`bid price and a current lowest ask price for the commodity;
`[B] displaying a first plurality of price levels along a static price
`axis on a graphical user interface of a display device associated
`with the computing device, where the first plurality of price
`levels range from a lowest value to a highest value along the
`static price axis;
`[C] in response to an input command received via an input
`device associated with the computing device, adjusting the first
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`plurality price levels among a range of price levels to an
`adjusted plurality of price levels including the first plurality of
`price levels;
`[D] displaying a bid and ask display region on the graphical
`user interface, the bid and ask display region comprising a
`plurality of locations corresponding to the first plurality of price
`levels displayed along the static price axis, wherein each
`location corresponds to one of the first plurality of price levels,
`and wherein a number of the plurality of locations changes
`according to adjusting the first plurality of price levels;
`[E] displaying a first indicator representing a quantity
`associated with the current highest bid price at a first location in
`the plurality of locations of the bid and ask display region,
`wherein the first indicator ascends or descends the static price
`axis as changes in the current highest bid price occur as a result
`of each of the plurality of price levels along the static price axis
`not changing positions on the graphical user interface unless a
`reposition command is received;
`[F] displaying a second indicator representing a quantity
`associated with the current lowest ask price at a second location
`in the plurality of locations of the bid and ask display region,
`wherein the second indicator ascends or descends the static
`price axis as changes in the current lowest ask price occur as a
`result of each of the plurality of price levels along the static
`price axis not changing positions on the graphical user interface
`unless the reposition command is received;
`[G] receiving the reposition command to reposition the static
`price axis when a designated price is within a designated
`number of price levels from the lowest value or the highest
`value along the static price axis; and
`[H] responsive to receiving the reposition command,
`automatically re-positioning the static price axis on the
`graphical user interface such that a current inside market price
`is displayed at a new desired location.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`As the Patent Owner does in its Preliminary Response, we refer
`to steps B and C as the “adjusting feature” and steps G and H as the
`“re-positioning feature.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12.
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner sets forth grounds of unpatentability of the challenged
`
`claims as follows:
`Ground Prior Art
`§ 101
`n/a
`§ 103
`TSE2
`§ 103
`TSE and Gutterman3
`§ 103
`TSE and Belden4
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–19
`1, 3, 4, 6–15 and 17–19
`2 and 5
`16
`
`Petitioner proffers a Declaration of Kendyl A. Roman (Ex. 1003,
`
`“Roman Decl.”) and a Declaration of David Rho (Ex. 1004, “Rho Decl.”) in
`support of the Petition.
`
`
`
`2 TOKYO STOCK EXCHANGE OPERATION SYSTEM DIVISION, FUTURES/OPTION
`PURCHASING SYSTEM TRADING TERMINAL OPERATION GUIDE (1998) (Ex.
`1008).
`3 Gutterman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 (issued Mar. 22, 1994) (Ex.
`1006).
`4 Belden et al., WO 90/11571 (published Oct. 4, 1990) (Ex. 1010).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
` II. ANALYSIS5
`A. Claim Construction
`In a covered business method patent review, the Board interprets
`claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under that standard, and absent any special
`definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`i. “static price axis”
` Petitioner argues that the ’055 patent defines “static price axis” as “a
`
`price column where prices ‘do not normally change positions unless a re-
`centering command is received.”’ Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 16–
`18; Roman Decl. ¶ 17).
`
`
`5 The parties urge us to defer to prior Board decisions in related covered
`business method patent review proceedings and decisions of the courts in
`related proceedings. Here, we do not give much, if any, deference to the
`prior Board decisions and the decisions of the courts that we are directed to
`in determining whether to institute a covered business method patent review
`in this proceeding. The prior decisions were based on different patents,
`different claims, different parties, different evidence, and in the case of the
`district court proceedings, different standards of proof and different claim
`construction standards. Additionally, we give no consideration to the
`arguments Patent Owner presents in letters sent to the Director of the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner does not proffer an explicit construction of this term.
`Patent Owner, however, “notes that the construction should read ‘unless a
`re-centering or re-positioning command is received.’” PO Resp. 17 n.4.
`Patent Owner also argues that “[a]n ordered list of bids and asks is not a
`reference line[] against which bids/asks are plotted and therefore cannot be
`an axis” and “[a] reference line, in the context of mathematics and graphing,
`establishes coordinates against which data can be plotted” (Prelim. Resp. 19
`n.6 (citing Ex. 2071 (dictionary definition of axis))). Patent Owner also
`argues that a static price axis cannot be a price column that skips price
`levels. Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner, thus, implies that a “static price
`axis” means a price reference line against which bids/asks are plotted, which
`price reference line does not skip price levels.
`On this record, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “static price axis” is a price column or reference line where
`prices do not normally change positions unless a re-centering or re-
`positioning command is received. This is consistent with the claim
`language, itself, which includes steps of receiving a re-positioning command
`and, in response, re-positions the static price axis. Ex. 1001, col. 34, ll. 60–
`67. We also are persuaded that a “static price axis” includes a reference line
`along which bids or asks are plotted. This is consistent with the ’055 patent
`disclosure of the static price axis and the plain meaning of the term. See id.
`at col. 7, l. 67–col. 8, l. 16; Ex. 2071.
`We, however, are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation precludes a price reference line that does not skip price levels
`because this is inconsistent with the ’055 patent, which discloses that price
`display conventions, other than displaying prices in increments or “ticks,”
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`can be used. Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 2–9; see also id. at col. 7, ll. 43–50
`(disclosing that the static prices can be displayed in any matter and that just
`market depth levels or working orders can be displayed).
`On this record and for the purposes of this decision, we determine that
`the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the ’055 patent of “static
`price axis” is a price column or reference line where prices do not normally
`change positions unless a re-centering or re-positioning command is
`received.
`
`
`ii. “single action”
`
`Petitioner argues that “single action” means “any action by a user,
`whether comprising one or more clicks of a mouse button or other input
`device.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 27–30; Roman Decl. ¶ 72).
`Patent Owner does not proffer an explicit construction of this term. On this
`record, we do not find Petitioner’s interpretation of “single action”
`unreasonable and adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation.
`
`
`iii. Other Terms
`
`We do not need to construe any other claim terms for the purposes of
`our decision.
`
`
`B. Requirements for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Section 18 of the AIA6 provides for the creation of a transitional
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`
`
`6 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`review to persons or their privies who have been sued or charged with
`infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
`patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that Petitioner was sued for
`infringement of the ’055 patent. Pet. 3; Paper 8, 3.
`
`
`i. Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’055 patent is a covered business method
`patent because it claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing
`data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or
`management of a financial product or service. Pet. 3–5. Petitioner argues
`that claims 1 and 17 are directed to a method and corresponding apparatus
`for displaying and re-positioning market data used for trading commodities,
`which is a financial activity. Id. at 4–5. Petitioner additionally argues that
`claim 16 claims a financial activity, because it recites sending a trade order
`to an electronic exchange. Id. Petitioner further argues that the ’055 patent
`discloses that it is directed to electronic trading, which is a financial activity.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 29).
`
`Petitioner further argues that the ’055 patent is eligible for covered
`business method review because the claimed subject matter does not recite a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, and
`solves a technical problem using a technical solution. Pet. 6–12.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`ii. Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner disputes that the ’055 patent qualifies for covered
`business method patent review. Prelim. Resp. 31–49. First, Patent Owner
`disputes that our Rules provide the correct test for determining whether a
`patent is eligible for covered business method patent review (“CBMR”). Id.
`at 32–43. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he CBMR test should start with
`whether the purpose of the claimed invention is an improvement to an
`operational method for conducting business. If not —e.g., where the
`purpose of the claimed invention is to improve the technology used—the
`claims are ineligible for CBMR.” Id. at 33. According to Patent Owner, the
`’055 patent claims a new GUI tool that improves the functioning of a
`computer rather than a purportedly new business method or data processing
`technique and is, therefore, ineligible for covered business method review.
`Id. at 32–43. For support, Patent Owner relies upon a statement by Senator
`Durbin in the legislative history. Id. at 37 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5428,
`S5433 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)).
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that even if the ’055 patent is a covered
`business method patent, it falls within the technological invention exception.
`Id. at 43–49. According to Patent Owner, the ’055 patent recites a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and
`solves a technical problem using a technical solution. Id. at 43. Patent
`Owner argues that the ’055 patent recites novel and unobvious
`improvements to the functionality of a GUI, which are technical features,
`and that the improvements are novel and unobvious because the ’055 patent
`was allowed by a patent examiner. Id. at 44–46. Patent Owner also argues
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`that the ’055 patent solves a technical problem with a technical solution
`because it solves problems with a prior art GUI tool. Id. at 46–47.
`
`
`iii. Analysis
`a. Financial Product
`A covered business method patent “claims a method or corresponding
`apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.”
`AIA § 18(d)(1).
`The “legislative history explains that the definition of covered
`business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming
`activities that are financial in nature.’” Transitional Program for Covered
`Business Method Patents —Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent
`and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`(quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`Schumer)). The legislative history indicates that “financial product or
`service” should be interpreted broadly to “encompass patents ‘claiming
`activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or
`complementary to a financial activity.’” Id.; see Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v.
`SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1323–26 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business
`method to be eligible for review. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (Response to
`Comment 8).
`Claim 1 recites “[a] method for re-positioning a static price axis on a
`graphical user interface for displaying market information of a commodity
`being traded at an electronic exchange.” Ex. 1001, col. 34, ll. 15–17. Claim
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`17 recites “[a] computer readable medium having computer-readable
`instructions thereon” which cause a computer to perform the method of
`claim 1. See id. at col. 36, ll. 1–3. The claimed method recites steps of
`receiving market information related to a commodity from an electronic
`exchange and displaying market information related to a commodity, such as
`a static price axis and indicators representing ask and bid information in the
`market. Id. at col. 34, ll. 19–59. Dependent claim 16 recites steps of setting
`trade order parameters and sending trade orders to an electronic exchange.
`Id. at col. 35, ll. 51–60.
`As can be seen from the above, the claims encompass processing
`financial data, associated with a tradeable object, for display or for sending
`an order to an exchange. This processing of financial data is used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a tradeable object, which is a
`financial product (see Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 10–14 (disclosing that tradeable
`objects include financial products)). Displaying financial market
`information for a tradeable object is an activity that is financial in nature.
`Receiving and displaying market information and sending trade orders
`to an electronic exchange are activities that are financial in nature. Given
`this, we determine that at least claims 1, 16, and 17 of the ’055 patent recite
`a method for performing operations used in the practice, administration, or
`management of a financial product or service (i.e., trading on an electronic
`exchange) and, therefore, determine that the ’055 patent is a covered
`business method patent. See 157 Cong. Rec. S5402, S5432 (Sept. 8, 2011)
`(statement of Senator Schumer that “selling and trading financial
`instruments and other securities” are a financial product).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`We determine, based on this record, that the ’055 patent is a covered
`business method patent because it “claims a method or corresponding
`apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service”
`and claims “activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial
`activity or complementary to a financial activity.” AIA § 18(d)(1); 77 Fed.
`Reg. at 48,735.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the ’055 patent is not a
`covered business method patent because it does not claim processing data in
`a business context. Prelim. Resp. 32–43. As discussed above, we determine
`that the ’055 patent is a covered business method patent because it claims a
`method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`product or service, as required by the Statute and our Rules. See AIA §§
`18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.302.
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the
`legislative history of the AIA establishes that novel user interfaces for
`commodities, as a category, were intended to be exempt from covered
`business method patent review. Although the legislative history includes
`certain statements that certain novel software tools and graphical user
`interfaces that are used by the electronic trading industry worker are not the
`target of § 18 of the AIA (see Prelim. Resp. 37 (reproducing a statement by
`Senator Durbin)) the language of the AIA, as passed, does not include an
`exemption for all allegedly novel or unobvious GUIs for trading
`commodities from covered business method patent review. Each claimed
`invention has to be evaluated individually to determine if it is eligible for a
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`covered business method patent review. A determination of whether a
`patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review under the
`statute is made on a case-by-case basis on the facts of each case. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.301(b).
`
`
`b. Technological Invention Exception
`Even if a patent includes claims that would otherwise be eligible for
`treatment as a covered business method, review of the patent is precluded if
`the claims cover only “technological invention[s],” as defined by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.301(b). The definition of “covered business method patent” in
`§ 18(d)(1) of the AIA does not include patents for “technological
`inventions.”
`To determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we
`consider “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and
`solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.301(b).
`The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not
`render a patent a “technological invention”:
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer
`hardware, communication or computer networks, software,
`memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, display
`devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM
`or point of sale device.
`(b) 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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763–64.
`Both prongs must be satisfied in order for the patent to be excluded as
`a technological invention. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1326–27. For the
`reasons discussed below and on this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner
`that the ’055 patent is not for a technological invention because it does not
`recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art
`or solve a technical problem using a technical solution. See Pet. 6–12.
`Claim 1 recites a method that requires the display of certain
`information in a certain arrangement on a GUI and allows for the adjusting
`or re-positioning of the information on the display. Ex. 1001, col. 34, ll. 15–
`67. Claim 1 requires a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software).
`Id.
`The ’055 patent discloses that its system can be implemented “on any
`existing or future terminal or device” (Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 2–7; see id. at col.
`5, ll. 39–43), which are known to include displays, and discloses that the
`input device can be a mouse (id. at col. 2, ll. 1–13, col. 5, ll. 24–27), which
`is a known input device. The ’055 patent describes “commercially available
`trading applications” that provide electronic trading interfaces that display
`bid and ask quantities in association with a static price scale, but states that
`“[t]he preferred embodiments, however, are not limited to any particular
`product that performs the translation, storage and/or display functions.” Id.
`at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 7. Further, the ’055 patent discloses that the physical
`mapping of information sent by the exchange to a screen grid (i.e., the GUI)
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`“may be done by any technique known to those skilled in the art.” Id. at col.
`6, l1. 31–35.
`Given the above, we determine that claim 1 does not recite a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art. Because
`both prongs must be satisfied for a patent to be excluded from covered
`business method patent review for being a technological invention, we find
`that the ’055 patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review
`for at least the reason that claim 1 fails to recite a technological feature that
`is novel and unobvious.
`Notwithstanding our determination above, on this record, we also are
`persuaded by Petitioner the ’055 patent does not solve a technical problem
`with a technical solution. The ’055 patent solves the problem of a trader
`having to read a display of prices for a commodity and enter a trade order
`before the price for the commodity changes. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 35–67.
`The ’055 patent solves this problem by displaying market information in a
`certain arrangement on a GUI and allows for the re-positioning of the
`information on the display. As discussed above, claim 1’s use of a display,
`an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software) are all known technology. Given
`this, we determine that at least claim 1 does not solve a technical problem
`using a technical solution and at least claim 1 does not satisfy the second
`prong. Accordingly, we find that the ’055 patent is eligible for covered
`business method patent review.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`C. Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
`i. Claims 1–19 Abstract Idea
`a. Petitioner’s Arguments
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Pet. 18–33. According
`to Petitioner, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “repositioning
`market information on a GUI and electronic trading,” which is a
`fundamental economic practice. Id. at 18. Petitioner further argues that the
`claims fail to recite any meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea. Id.
`at 25–31.
`
`
`b. Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`Patent Owner disputes that claims 1–19 are directed to patent
`ineligible subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 49–62. According to Patent Owner,
`the claims of the ’055 patent are not directed to an abstract idea but to the
`“structural and functional aspects of a GUI tool and do not attempt to claim
`trading, displaying market information or any other long-standing economic
`practice that might be an abstract idea.” Id. at 53. Further, according to
`Patent Owner, the claims recite an inventive concept necessarily rooted in
`computer technology, which is the combination of the “adjusting” and
`“repositioning” features with the static price axis and dynamic indicators.
`See id. at 56–62 (pointing to section II of the Preliminary Response for the
`particular technological features). Patent Owner also argues that the
`examples from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s new July 2015
`Guidelines on Patent Eligibility (Ex. 2034) demonstrate that the claims of
`the ’055 patent are patent eligible. Prelim. Resp. 50–52.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`
`c. Analysis
`Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in § 101 of the Patent Act,
`which recites:
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
`useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
`to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`
`
`There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
`categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
`phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is
`patent ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent eligible.
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must consider “the elements of each
`claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
`whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
`patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297–98). The
`claim must contain elements or a combination of elements that are
`“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
`than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
`1294).
`Claims 1–16 recite a method, which falls, nominally, into the
`process category of patent-eligible subject matter of § 101. Claims
`17–19 are similar to claims 1, 13, and 14, but differ in that they recite
`a computer readable medium having program code that causes a
`computer to execute the claimed method.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`
`
`1. Abstract Idea
`Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 recites a method and
`claim 17 recites a computer readable medium having computer-
`readable instructions that causes a computer to execute the method
`recited by claim 1. The claims do not differ materially for purposes of
`a § 101 analysis.
`Claim 1 recites a method that requires the display of certain
`information in a certain arrangement on a GUI and allows for the re-
`positioning of the information on the display. On this record, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of re-
`positioning market information on a GUI and electronic trading. See Pet.
`21–24. This is a fundamental economic practice. The ’055 patent discloses
`that it is conventional and routine for traders to use trading screens to display
`market information, received continuously and updated rapidly. Ex. 1001,
`col. 1, l. 36–55.
`
`
`2. Inventive Concept
`Next we turn to “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as
`an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements
`‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Mayo,
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
