UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`CQG, INC.,
`CQGT, LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Mail Stop "PA TENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 223 13-1450
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`I. (cid:9)
`
`Mandatory Notices (cid:9)
`
`. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real parties-in- interest .......................................................................... 2
`
`Related Matters.....................................................................................2
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel...................................................................3
`
`II. (cid:9)
`
`Grounds For Standing.....................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners’ certification.......................................................................3
`
`The ’055 patent is a Covered Business Method patent........................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’055 patent claims a covered business method...................4
`
`The ’055 patent is not for a "technological invention ................ 6
`
`AlA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review ............... 12
`
`III. (cid:9)
`
`Identification of the Challenge .....................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge....................................................14
`
`Citation of Prior Art ............................................................. ............... 15
`
`IV. (cid:9)
`
`The ’055 Patent ............................. ................ .............................. .................. 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ("POSA")...................................16
`
`Claim Construction.............................................................................16
`
`V. (cid:9)
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of repositioning
`
`market information on a graphical user interface.
`
`(Alice Step 1) ......21
`
`The claims do not recite an inventive concept (Alice Step 2)............24
`
`The absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate
`
`patenteligibility..................................................................................28
`
`The claims are not rooted in computer technology............................29
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`TT v. CQG is not a controlling precedent..........................................32
`
`The dependent claims also recite non-statutory subject matter .........32
`
`Computer-readable medium claims 17-19 are also patent
`
`ineligible because they encompass a transitory, propagating
`
`signal...................................................................................................33
`
`VI. (cid:9) Grounds 2-5 - The TSE Obviousness Grounds............................................34
`
`A. (cid:9)
`
`Ground 2: TSE renders claims 1, 3, 4, 6-15, & 17-19 obvious..........35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of TSE......................................................................35
`
`Prosecution History.................................................................. 40
`
`TSE renders claims 1 and 17 obvious......................................42
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`TSE discloses the preamble of claims I and 17 ............42
`
`TSE discloses the ’receiving" step................................44
`
`TSE discloses "displaying a first plurality ofprice
`
`levels along a static price axis " ..................................... 45
`
`TSE discloses "adjusting the first plurality price
`levels .. ............................................................................. 46
`TSE discloses "displaying a bid and ask display
`
`region on the graphical user interface" ........................50
`
`The TSE discloses "displaying afirst[/second]
`
`indicator representing quantity associated with the
`
`current highest bid[/lowest ask] price " ......................... 52
`
`TSE discloses "receiving the reposition command to
`
`reposition the static price axis " ..................................... 54
`
`TSE discloses "automatically repositioning the static
`
`priceaxis " ...................................................................... 57
`
`- 111 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`TSE renders claim 3 obvious...................................................
`
`57
`
`TSE renders claim 4 obvious ...................................................
`
`58
`
`TSE renders claim 6 obvious................................................... 59
`
`TSE renders the repositioning events of claims 7-12 obvious 60
`
`TSE renders claims 13 and 18 obvious.................................... 63
`
`TSE renders claims 14 and 19 obvious ...................................64
`
`10.
`
`TSE renders claim 15 obvious................................................ 65
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: TSE and Gutterman render claims 2 and 5 obvious . ........ 65
`
`Ground 4: TSE and Belden render claim 16 obvious ........................
`
`68
`
`Vii. (cid:9) Conclusion.............................................................. ..................................... 74
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank mt ’1,
`134 (cid:9) S. (cid:9) Ct. (cid:9) 2347 (cid:9) (2014).................................................................................. passim
`
`Ariosa Diags. et al. v. Sequenorn, Inc. et al.,
`788 F.3d (cid:9) 1371 (cid:9) (Fed. Cir. (cid:9) 2015)........................................................................... 28
`
`Bancorp Sen’s., LLC. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012).....................................................................27, 30
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 (cid:9) S. (cid:9) Ct. (cid:9) 3218 (cid:9) (2010) ............................................................................. 18,21,24
`Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Ply Ltd., No.
`CBM20I3-00005, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013).........................................
`
`5
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Ply. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d (cid:9) 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013)...........................................................................24
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .....................................................................
`
`(cid:9) 18,21
`
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels, corn, L. P. et al.,
`773 (cid:9) F.3d (cid:9) 1245 (cid:9) (Fed. Cir. 2014)...........................................................................29
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc,
`545 (cid:9) U.S. (cid:9) 546 (cid:9) (2005) (cid:9) ............................................................................................ 12
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch,
`CBM2013-00049, Paper 53 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2015) ......................................... 24
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network Inc.,
`No. (cid:9) 14-1048 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 23, 2015)........................................................... 25, 27
`Jewelry Channel, Inc. v. America’s Collectibles Network, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00119, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2015).................................. 27,28
`
`Mayo Collab. v. Prometheus Labs,
`132 (cid:9) S. (cid:9) Ct. (cid:9) 1289 (cid:9) (2012)................................................................................... 26,28
`
`Mims v. Arrow Fin. Sen’s.,
`132 (cid:9) S. (cid:9) Ct. (cid:9) 740 (cid:9) (2012)...........................................................................................
`
`13
`
`Phillips v. A WH Corp.,
`415 (cid:9) F.3d (cid:9) 1303 (cid:9) (Fed. (cid:9) Cir. 2005)........................................................................... 17
`
` -v -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`SiRF Techs. Inc. v. mt ’1 Trade Comm.,
`601 (cid:9) F.3d (cid:9) 1319 (Fed. (cid:9) Cir. 2010)...........................................................................28
`
`Trading Techs mt ’1, Inc., v. Open E Cry, LLC,
`728 F.3d (cid:9) 1309, (cid:9) 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................14
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d (cid:9) 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)...........................................................................17
`
`Ultramercial v. Hulu,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................. 21,22,25
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 4,8,12,23
`
`Xianli Zhang v. United States,
`640 F.3d (cid:9) 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)...........................................................................
`
`12
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.0 § 101 ..............................................................................................1, 14, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)...................................................................................................15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................
`
`15, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................1,14
`
`AlA§ 18(d)(2) ........................................................................................................13
`
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011) .................................................................... 13
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (Sept. 8, 2011) .............................................................. 12,13
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (Aug. 14, 2012).........................................................................4
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012).....................................................................6, 8
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .......................................................................................... 6, 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ....................................................................................................3
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 to Brumfield et al. ("the ’055 patent")
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/4 17,547, which became the
`’055 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR ("File History")
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Roman ("Roman Dccl.")
`Expert Declaration of David Rho ("Rho Decl.")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. ("Silverman")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. ("Gutterman")
`"Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide" ("TSE JP")
`Certified English-language Translation of "Futures/Option Purchas-
`ing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide" ("TSE")
`Certificate of Translation for "Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide" ("TSE Certificate")
`
`WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. ("Belden")
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-53 12, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 ("Depo. Transcript")
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Roman
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Roman
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho
`Mark J. Powers, "Starting Out in Futures Trading," Sixth Edition,
`2001 ("Powers")
`History of the American and NASDAQ Stock Exchanges, Business
`Reference Services, The Library of Congress
`Weiss, "After the Trade is Made," pp. 44-46. ("Weiss")
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-481 1, slip op. at 10 (N.D.
`111. Feb. 24, 2015)
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`--
`
`
`
`-
`
`Exh. No.
`1020
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Description
`Ben Shneiderman, "Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Ef-
`fective Human-Computer Interaction," Third Edition, 1998 ("Shnei-
`____________ derman")
`1021
`Robert Deel, "The Strategic Electronic Day Trader," 2000 ("Deel")
`1022
`Deposition Transcript of Richard Hartheimer held April 29, 2015
`("Hartheimer Tr.")
`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")
`Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed,
`Oxford University Press, 1996 ("Oxford Dictionary")
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, inc., 1985
`("Inside Macintosh")
`
`1026
`Alan Cooper, "About Face: The Essentials of User Interface De-
`____ sign," First Edition, 1995. ("Cooper")
`1027
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`("Thomas Tr.")
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher Thomas, Trading Technolo-
`gies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. et al., No. 04-cv-53 12
`("eSpeed Tr.")
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. mt ’1, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00137 1 Paper 19 ("Inst. Dec.")
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00137, Paper 41 ("POR")
`Super Mario Brothers image (1985)
`Metal Warrior V1.6 source code (1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 6 1205,260 to Crinon et al. ("Crinon")
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 to Kemp, II et al. ("132 patent")
`
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, CQG, Inc., and CQGT,
`
`LLC, petition for Covered Business Method ("CBM") Review of claims 1-19 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 (Ex. 1001, "055 patent"), owned by Trading Technolo-
`
`gies international, Inc. ("TT" or "Patent Owner"). This Petition demonstrates that
`
`claims 1-19 of the ’055 patent are more likely than not unpatentable.
`
`First, claims 1-19 are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.0 § 101 because
`
`each merely recites the abstract idea of repositioning market information on a
`
`graphical user interface ("GUI"). The claims represent nothing more than the well
`
`understood, routine, and conventional activities of receiving inside market infor-
`
`mation from an exchange, displaying (and adjusting) it along a static price axis,
`
`displaying bid and ask quantity indicators along the static price axis, and reposi-
`
`tioning the displayed data along the static price axis in response to a command. In-
`
`deed, the PTAB previously instituted CBM review of the
`
`’055 patent based on this
`
`abstract idea. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. mt ’1, Inc.,
`
`CBM2015-00137, Paper 19 (Ex. 1029, "Inst. Dec.") at 13-16 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2,
`
`2014). The claims do no more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement
`
`the abstract idea on a computer. That CBM was terminated after joint motion by
`
`the parties prior to final written decision. CBM2015-00 137, Paper 67.
`
`Second, claims 1-19 are also obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
`
`’055 pa-
`
`tent admits that its claimed GUI software can be implemented on any existing
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`computer that can perform the claimed functions, which include plotting bids and
`
`asks along a static price axis and repositioning the displayed data along the static
`
`price axis in response to a command. These claimed functions were well known
`
`before the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’055 patent. Prior art, such as TSE,
`
`describes interfaces that display and reposition market information as claimed in
`
`the ’055 patent.
`
`The ’055 patent merely utilizes well-known and simple graphical user inter-
`
`face design techniques in a financial trading product. Petitioners therefore request
`
`that the PTAB institute trial on all Grounds.
`
`I. (cid:9)
`
`Mandatory Notices
`
`A.
`
`Real parties-in-interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, CQG,
`
`Inc., and CQGT, LLC.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’055 patent is currently involved in the following consolidated proceed-
`
`ing that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: TT v. BGC
`
`Partners, Inc., et al., 10-cv-715 (N.D. Ill.) (1:10-cv-931, 1:10-cv-929, 1:10-cv-885,
`
`1 :l0-cv-883, 1 :10-cv-884, 1:10-cv-882, 1 :10-cv-726, 1 :10-cv-721, I :10-cv-716,
`
`1:10-cv-718, and 1:10-cv-720 consolidated therein). Of the twelve consolidated
`
`cases, the ’055 patent was or is asserted in the following five actions: 10-cv-71 8,
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`1 0-cv-720, 1 0-cv-72 1, 1 0-cv-883, and 1 0-cv-885.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`Petitioners appoint Robert E. Sokohi (Reg. No. 36,013) as lead counsel,
`
`and Lori Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) and Richard M. Bemben (Reg. No. 68,658)
`
`as back-up counsel, all at: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, 1100 New York Ave-
`
`nue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone number (202)772-8997, facsimile
`
`(202)371-2540. Petitioners consent to service by email at: rsokohl-
`
`PTABskgf. corn, I gordon-ptab@skgf. corn, rbemben-PTABskgf. corn, and
`
`PTABskgf.com .
`
`II. Grounds For Standing
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners’ certification
`
`Petitioners meet the eligibility requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302 because
`
`they were sued for infringement of the ’055 patent: TT v. IBG LLC, 1:1 0-cv-0072 I
`
`(N.D. Ill); TTv. CQG, Inc., 1:10-cv-00718 (N.D. Ill.). Again 10-cv-00721 and 10-
`
`cv-007 18 were consolidated with 1 0-cv-007 15. Petitioners are not estopped or
`
`barred from filing this Petition(cid:151)they have not been a party or a privy to a party in
`
`any post-grant proceeding of the ’055 patent, and have not filed a civil action chal-
`
`lenging any of its claims.
`
`B.
`
`The ’055 patent is a Covered Business Method patent
`
`The ’055 patent is a CBM patent because it claims a method for displaying
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`and repositioning market data used for trading commodities, which is a process
`
`that is financial in nature, but not a technological invention. In CBM2014-00137,
`
`the PTAB analyzed the ’055 patent and found it eligible for CBM review. And
`
`contrary to TT’ s previous arguments, GUIs are not exempt from CBM review.
`
`1. (cid:9)
`
`The ’055 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. § 42301(a). The term "financial product or service" should be "inter-
`
`preted broadly," encompassing patents "claiming activities that are financial in na-
`
`ture, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity."
`
`Transitional Program for CBM Patents(cid:151)Definitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734,
`
`48735
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). The Federal Circuit upheld the Office’s interpretation in Versata
`
`Dcv. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1323-26 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The ’055 patent meets this definition. Claims 1 and 17 expressly recite re-
`
`ceiving market information (i.e., the inside market that includes the highest bid and
`
`lowest ask price for a commodity being traded) from an electronic exchange, dis-
`
`playing it (along with other graphical components) along a static price axis, and
`
`receiving commands including a command to adjust the price levels and a com-
`
`mand to reposition data along the static price axis. Additionally, claim 16 recites
`
`sending a trade order to the electronic exchange. These activities are inherently fi-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`nancial in nature, because they relate to, are incidental to, or complementary to
`
`trading on an electronic exchange(cid:151)a financial activity. (Inst. Dec.,
`
`p. 9.) For ex-
`
`ample, receiving market information with bid and ask information for a commodity
`
`and displaying it to a trader is a financial activity. See Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-
`
`Alert Pty Ltd., No. CBM2013-00005, Paper 18, pp. 3-5 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013)
`
`(informing a user of certain stock market events is a financial service). Similarly,
`
`receiving trader inputs for a trade and sending a trade order to an exchange in-
`
`volves trading on an exchange, a financial activity.
`
`(See Ex. 1016, Powers, pp.
`
`324-25.)
`
`Collectively, the claims are directed to a method for facilitating trading in an
`
`electronic exchange using a GUI. Not only does the preamble admit that the collec-
`
`tion of method steps is drawn to "displaying market information of a commodity
`
`being traded at an electronic exchange," but the patent illustrates a GUI in accord-
`
`ance with the claimed invention such as that shown in, for example, FIGS. 3-5, 7,
`
`10-1413, 1513-1913, and 20A-22, thereby confirming that the patent is directed to
`
`financial services. And, the patent itself says the "present
`
`invention is directed to
`
`electronic trading." (’055 patent, 1:29 (emphasis added).) Indeed, the PTAB has
`
`already determined that the ’055 patent "recite[s] a method for performing opera-
`
`tions used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`
`service (i.e., trading on an electronic exchange)." (Inst. Dec., p. 9.)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`2. (cid:9)
`
`The ’055 patent is not for a "technological invention"
`
`A technological invention is determined by considering whether the claimed
`
`subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvi-
`
`ous over the prior art, and solves a technical problem using a technical solution. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(b). When applying the technological test, it is appropriate to con-
`
`sider the Office Patent Trial Guide which provides exemplary claim drafting tech-
`
`niques which do not render a patent a technological invention. 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756,
`
`48763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the Trial Guide, (a) "[m]ere recitation of known
`
`technologies, such as computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`
`software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, display devices
`
`or databases. . 4;] (b) [r]eciting the use of known prior art technology to accom-
`
`plish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-
`
`obvious[; and] (c) [c]ombining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected,
`
`or predictable result of that combination" are insufficient to establish a technologi-
`
`cal invention. M. Yet, as demonstrated below, the claims(cid:151)in their entirety(cid:151)
`
`employ precisely these claim drafting techniques and therefore fail both prongs of
`
`the technological invention test under 37 C.F.R. § 42.30 1(b).
`
`In short, the claims (and in particular claims 1 and 17) recite trading soft-
`
`ware that is implemented using conventional computer hardware such as personal
`
`computers, servers, networks, displays, and input devices and therefore do not in-
`
`
`mom
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`dude a technological feature or implement a technological solution. Indeed, the
`
`’055 patent itself admits that the computing device that performs the claimed
`
`method(cid:151)i.e., conventional computer functions such as "receiving," "displaying,"
`
`and "adjusting" and "repositioning" displayed data(cid:151)need not be any specific
`
`hardware but "is not limited by the type of terminal or device used, and is not lim-
`
`ited to any particular type of trading application. Rather, the trading tools may be
`
`implemented on any existing or future terminal or device with the processing ca-
`
`pability to perform the functions described herein" (’055 patent, 5:2-7), which
`
`were known to include a display device and a mouse (id. at 2:1-13, 5:24-27.) Fur-
`
`ther, the patent states that the trading tools are "not limited to any particular net-
`
`work architecture, but rather may be applied with utility on workstations or other
`
`client devices in any network that can be used for electronic trading."
`
`(Id. at 5:39-
`
`43; see also Id. at 6:5-7 ("not limited to any particular product that performs the
`
`translation, storage and/or display functions").) Further, the ’055 patent confirms
`
`that the claims are not limited by the method used to map the data to the screen
`
`display, rather the physical mapping "may be done by any technique known to
`
`those skilled in the art." (Id. at 6:31-36.) And electronic trading was well known as
`
`of the filing date, going back as far as 1971 when NASDAQ set up the first elec-
`
`tronic stock exchange. (See Ex. 1017, "History of the American and NASDAQ
`
`Stock Exchanges," p. 1.)
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Not only are conventional prior art structures identified by the claims, the
`
`claimed result is entirely normal, expected, and predictable. See 77 Fed. Reg. at
`
`48763-64 (claims drawn to combinations of structures that achieve normal, ex-
`
`pected, and predictable results are not technological); but cfid. (reciting known
`
`technology to accomplish a process or method is not sufficient, even if the process
`
`or method is novel and non-obvious); Versata, 793 F.3d at 1326 (doubting the im-
`
`port of novelty and obviousness in technological invention analysis). As described
`
`in detail herein, the claims of the ’055 patent do not recite a technical feature that is
`
`novel or unobvious over the prior art. See infra Sections V and VI; (Ex. 1003,
`
`Roman Dccl. (demonstrating obviousness of certain claims); Ex. 1004, Rho Dee!.
`
`(demonstrating obviousness of certain claims).) Rather, they recite only well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional steps of receiving inside market information,
`
`displaying it graphically to a trader (including adjusting the display), displaying
`
`quantity indicators associated with the market information, repositioning the mar-
`
`ket information when it changes, entering buy and sell orders, and sending the
`
`trade order to the exchange to be executed. Id.; (See also ’055 patent, 1:42-46, 2:5-
`
`9 (admitted exemplary conventional activities of an exchange)).
`
`Moreover, the ’055 patent does not provide a technical solution to a tech-
`
`nical problem. Instead, the inventors recognized that the problem they were facing
`
`was a financial or trader (i.e., business) problem: reading a display of prices for a
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`commodity and entering a trade order before the price for the commodity changes.
`
`(Id. at 2:16-17, 35-67; see also Inst. Dec., p. 12.) According to the specification, a
`
`trader’s ability to react quickly was paramount to profitability.
`
`( 1 055 patent, 2:15-
`
`16, 7:37-39.) "The faster a trader can trade, the less likely it will be that the trader
`
`will miss the trader’s price and the more likely the trader will make money."
`
`(Id. at
`
`2:53-55.) Yet, this problem is not a technical or computer problem.
`
`In particular, the inventors explained in U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 ("132
`
`patent," Ex. 1034), which was incorporated by reference in the ’055 patent
`
`(id. at
`
`1:15-16, 22-24), that placing a trade order for a given commodity involves a "trad-
`
`ing cycle" (’132 patent, 2:23-38) with four component parts: (1) time waiting to
`
`receive pricing information from a host; (2) "[t]he time it takes for the client appli-
`
`cation [i.e., the computer hardware and software] to display the price to the trader;"
`
`(3) "[t]he time it takes for a trade order to be transmitted to the host
`
`[i.e., transmis-
`
`sion time]; and (4) "the time required for the trader to read the prices displayed and
`
`to enter a trade order." (Id. at 2:27-37.) And, as demonstrated above, the alleged
`
`invention in the ’055 patent (like the invention in the ’132 patent) addresses prob-
`
`lems associated with the last portion of the trader cycle
`
`(i.e., the time required for
`
`the trader to read displayed prices and enter a trade order) and not the technical
`
`problems associated with the first three parts of the trader cycle.
`
`(’055 patent, 2:16-
`
`17, 35-67; ’132 patent, 2:37-41.) Explaining the problem by reference to the prior
`
`S
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`art, the inventors indicated that the Figure 2-style prior art screens were sometimes
`
`considered "counterintuitive and difficult to follow." (’132 patent, 7:9-16;
`
`see also
`
`Id. (noting that "some traders may find the display of market depth [in Figure 2-
`
`style screens] difficult to follow" and that the "combination [of two price columns
`
`with both bids and asks descending as these prices increase] may be considered
`
`counterintuitive and difficult to follow by some traders.") (emphasis added).)
`
`The problem of a trader having to read a display of prices quickly and enter
`
`a trade order without missing an intended price before the prices for the commodi-
`
`ty changes on a GUI that may be considered, by some, counterintuitive and diffi-
`
`cult to follow is, on its face, a problem associated with a trader. It is not a tech-
`
`nical problem because reading a display of prices is something that a human does
`
`and therefore, is a human issue not a technological problem. Similarly, a trader’s
`
`ability or inability to react .s a trader problem, not a problem with the speed or ef-
`
`ficiency of a computer.
`
`TT’s characterization of the problem in the ’055 patent and by incorporation
`
`by reference as a trader problem is buttressed by TT’s expert, Mr. Christopher
`
`Thomas. Mr. Christopher Thomas previously indicated that the problem with the
`
`prior art was localized in the trader’s head (Ex. 1027, Thomas Tr., 63:7-8) and re-
`
`quired significant amount of mental calculations (Ex. 1023, Thomas Rep. ¶ 32, 2d
`
`bullet point).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Despite the foregoing, TT previously insisted that the ’055 patent solves the
`
`problem of the trader having to mentally track market activity including where the
`
`market was trading. (Ex. 1030, CBM2014-00137, POR, pp. 14-15 ("POR"). Nota-
`
`bly, even if one were to accept TT’s definition of the problem solved by the patent,
`
`the problem remains a trader problem and not one rooted in technology. As dis-
`
`cussed above, mentally tracking known information is a human issue, not a techno-
`
`logical issue.
`
`Not only is the problem not technical, but the purported solution is also not
`
`technical. The ’055 patent simply provides a graphical representation of what a
`
`trader did in his mind, thus allowing the trader to be more profitable by enhancing
`
`the likelihood that a trader entered quantities (i.e., orders) and having those quanti-
`
`ties (i.e., orders) filled at desirable prices. In particular, the specification admits
`
`that before the invention, traders had to determine market status and trends on their
`
`own (i.e., in the mind of the trader). (’055 patent, 14:41-43.) TT allegedly solved
`
`the problem by displaying known market information in a certain arrangement on a
`
`GUI and allowing for the repositioning of the information on the display.
`
`(Id. at
`
`3:1-39; Inst. Dec., p. 12.) And with the claimed repositioning, the specification ex-
`
`plains that the trader would "always have a visible reference of where the market is
`
`trading" just by looking at the GUI, thus "increasing the likelihood of [profitabil-
`
`ity]." (’055 patent, 26:30-33.) TT’s solution may be aesthetic, but it is certainly not
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`technical because assisting a trader in making quick mental calculations to facili-
`
`tate a trade by displaying known data in a known configuration on a general pur-
`
`pose computer is conventional and does not improve the functionality of comput-
`
`ers. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1327 (not technological if conventional);
`
`(see also
`
`Roman Deci., ¶J 68-70). Under the same logic, allowing a trader to send a trade to
`
`an electronic exchange by selecting a portion of the GUI in a well-known manner
`
`is similarly non-technical. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1327. Importantly, TT did not
`
`design a more accurate mouse or a computer that responded faster and more effi-
`
`ciently. Thus, TT’s claims also fail the second prong of the technological invention
`
`test. Accordingly, the ’055 patent is a CBM patent eligible for CBM review based
`
`on at least claims 1, 16, and 17.
`
`3. (cid:9)
`
`AlA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review
`
`TT has previously argued for the creation of a GUI exception to the statute
`
`based on Senator Durbin’s statement regarding "novel software tools and [GUIs]."
`
`(POR, pp. 64-67 (citing 157 Cong. Rec