UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,212,999
`____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENDYL A. ROMÁN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 7,212,999
`
`
`Ex. 1012
`CBM of U.S. Pat. No. 7,212,999
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,212,999
`____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENDYL A. ROMÁN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 7,212,999
`
`
`Ex. 1012
`CBM of U.S. Pat. No. 7,212,999
`
`
`
`I, KENDYL A. ROMÁN, DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
`
`1.
`
`I have been engaged by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on
`
`behalf of Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group,
`
`Inc., and TradeStation Securities, Inc., for the above-captioned covered business
`
`method review proceeding. I understand that this proceeding involves United
`
`States Patent 7,212,999, entitled “User interface for an electronic trading system,”
`
`by Richard W. Friesen and Peter C. Hart, filed April 9, 1999, and issued May 1,
`
`2007 (the “’999 Patent”). For the purposes of Covered Business Method review, I
`
`assume the earliest possible priority date of the ’999 Patent is the April 9, 1999
`
`filing date. I understand that the ’999 Patent is currently assigned to Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”).
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the ’999
`
`Patent. I understand that the ’999 Patent has been provided as Ex. 1001. I will cite
`
`to the specification using the following format (’999 Patent, 1:1-10). This example
`
`citation points to the ’999 Patent specification at column 1, lines 1-10.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of the ’999
`
`Patent. I understand that the file history has been provided as Ex. 1002.
`
`4.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art used
`
`in the Petition for Covered Business Method Review of the ’999 Patent:
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`• A certified translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”) and the original figures in the
`
`Japanese-language original. The translation is Exhibit 1016, and the
`
`original is Exhibit 1015.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631 to Schott (“Schott”), Exhibit 1019.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992 to Subler et al. (“Subler”), Exhibit 1020.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,689,651 to Lozman (“Lozman”), Exhibit 1021.
`
`• WO 97/06492 to Jackson (“Jackson”), Exhibit 1040.
`
`A complete listing of additional materials considered and relied upon in
`
`preparation of my declaration is provided as Ex. 1014. I have relied on these
`
`materials to varying degrees. Citations to these materials that appear below are
`
`meant to be exemplary but not exhaustive.
`
`5.
`
`The ’999 Patent describes a graphical user interface for electronic
`
`trading systems. (’999 Patent, Title, 1:6-8.) I am familiar with the subject matter
`
`described in the ’999 Patent as of the earliest possible priority date of the ’999
`
`Patent (April 9, 1999).
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have also reviewed the following documents relating to CBM2014-
`
`00131:
`
`• The Board’s Decision to Institute issued on December 2, 2014. (Paper
`
`No. 19, submitted with this petition as Ex. 1005)
`
`• TT’s Patent Owner Response (POR) filed March 6, 2015. (Paper No.
`
`38, submitted with this petition as Ex. 1007)
`
`7.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights
`
`and opinions regarding the ’999 Patent and the above-noted references that form
`
`the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the petition for Covered
`
`Business Method Review of the ’999 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`8.
`
`See my Curriculum Vitae, provided as Ex. 1013, for a listing of my
`
`qualifications. This includes a list of publications for the past 10 years or more.
`
`9. My expertise qualifies me to do the type of analysis required in this
`
`case. Of particular relevance, I have been involved in the design, implementation,
`
`testing, and analysis of computer software, firmware, and hardware for over thirty
`
`years, including software architecture, graphical user interfaces, trading systems,
`
`and other networked, data-driven, client-server systems. My work has included
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`analysis of trading systems including source code and user interfaces. In addition, I
`
`have practical experience in the design and programming of a variety of computer
`
`systems ranging from handheld devices, to laptops and desktop computers, to large
`
`multi-layer networked database systems.
`
`10. As a freshman at Brigham Young University (“BYU”) in 1976, I
`
`started writing programs for IBM computers.
`
`11.
`
`In 1980, I worked with Apple II computers and wrote computer
`
`programs having graphic user interfaces.
`
`12.
`
`In the late 1960’s and 1970’s the University of Utah was known for its
`
`pioneering work in computer graphics (and the Internet1). At BYU, I got involved
`
`with computer graphics and wrote graphics programs. Many of my BYU
`
`professors had been at the University of Utah during its computer science
`
`pioneering years. One of my BYU professors, Alan Ashton, and a fellow computer
`
`science student, Bruce Bastian, worked together on word processing software with
`
`graphical display. Later, Professor Ashton and Bruce Bastian founded
`
`WordPerfect.
`
`
`
`
`1 In 1969, University of Utah was one of the first four nodes on the Internet.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I graduated with High Honors from Brigham Young University where
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science. My formal studies
`
`included computer architecture, computer programming, programming languages,
`
`algorithms, operating systems, database systems, and digital logic design.
`
`14.
`
`In 1981, I worked at International Business Machines (“IBM”) in San
`
`Jose, CA. At IBM, I had a graphics display on my desk and wrote programs that
`
`displayed custom graphics. During my employment at IBM, the IBM PC was
`
`released. The IBM PC also supported graphical user interfaces.
`
`15.
`
`In 1982, at Dialogic, I improved the performance of the Computer
`
`Aided Design (“CAD”) software.2 The CAD software drew polygons on the
`
`graphical display and placed them along value axes.
`
`16.
`
`In this timeframe, I had experience with Tandy computers, including
`
`the TRS-80, and with Commodore VIC 20 computers, which supported graphical
`
`user interfaces.
`
`
`
`
`2 The software, the Lucas Drawing System, had been developed by Lucas
`
`Films to aid in the production of Star Wars.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`17.
`
`In 1984, I starting writing programs for the Apple Lisa and
`
`Macintosh, which had a sophisticated graphical user interface built into the
`
`firmware and operating system. Both Lisa and Macintosh used a one button mouse
`
`as a pointing device. The user controls various operations by clicking, double
`
`clicking, or dragging the mouse. Such operations are affected by release of the
`
`mouse button. For example, a mouse click is defined by the release of a mouse
`
`button within a set number of pixels from where it was depressed. A double click
`
`is defined by the second release when clicking twice. Likewise, a click and drag is
`
`depressing the button to select the item, and releasing the mouse button to release it
`
`at the desired location or value.
`
`18. The Macintosh desktop metaphor allowed icons to be dragged and
`
`dropped to perform different operations. For example, to copy a file from one disk
`
`to another, a user would drag and drop the icon representing the file to an icon
`
`representing the destination disk. To erase a file, the user would drag and drop the
`
`file’s icon to the trash can icon. To eject a floppy disk, the user would drag and
`
`drop the disk’s icon to the trash can icon.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`19.
`
` I developed a Macintosh program that drew graphical icons (or
`
`polygons) on the display.3 The icons changed size base on a numerical value. The
`
`user interface allowed for a window to be displayed that showed the numerical
`
`value as text. I also implemented a simple drawing feature where a child could
`
`draw free from lines by dragging a pen across the screen. When the child clicked
`
`the mouse the pen would start drawing on the screen until the child dropped the
`
`pen, when the pen would stop drawing. My program would track the dropping and
`
`dragging of the pens, and would draw the lines which traced the path of each drag
`
`and drop.
`
`20. Next in 1986, I started consulting at Hewlett Packard (“HP”) where I
`
`became familiar with standard printer description languages and graphic command
`
`languages. During this time I used X-Windows.
`
`
`
`
`3 An article regarding the software was published in MacWorld Magazine
`
`around February 1987. A review was published in 1990 by the Boston Computer
`
`Society, which also showed various features of the user interface. See
`
`http://www.wolfpup.org/misc/MacBaby_Math_review.pdf.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`21. Later, in 1988 through 1990, at Tandem (later Compaq, now HP), I
`
`worked with CAD systems and hardware simulators, which used graphical user
`
`interfaces and included pop-up windows that provided textual representations of
`
`values related to graphical displays.
`
`22.
`
`In 1990, I authored portions of the Macintosh Programming
`
`Fundamentals: Self-paced Training course interactive CD-ROM and lab book.
`
`23.
`
`I returned to HP in 1991 where I worked with diagnostic tools,
`
`including exercises and verifiers. During this period, I was involved in testing
`
`various graphics adapters and display devices throughout the HP product line. I
`
`worked with an X-Windows based diagnostic tool that displayed an icon for every
`
`component of the system. The number, type, and locations of the icons were based
`
`on the components actually found in the system. The icons were dynamically
`
`changed to represent the status of the testing.
`
`24.
`
`In 1991 and 1992, at Slate and Apple, I worked with the pen based
`
`tablets and handheld computers, including the NCR tablet and Newton PDA.
`
`25.
`
`In 1993 and 1994, I taught classes for Mentor Graphics to hardware
`
`designers regarding hardware simulation and design verification software. Mentor
`
`Graphics’ CAD system had the features discussed above regarding CAD software.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`In addition, I taught users how to customize CAD software to perform complex
`
`custom operations based on a single action with a user input device.
`
`26.
`
`In 1993 and 1994, at Apple I worked with the Apple Media Tool team
`
`and the SK8 team, which included working with state of the art graphic display
`
`systems.
`
`27. An early game developed with the Apple Media Tool was Forever
`
`Growing Garden,4 which is a gardening simulation game. The user selects seeds
`
`for different types of plants or flowers and plants them in a garden by dragging and
`
`dropping the selected seeds on the desired rows. For the plants to grow, the user
`
`has to water the plants by dragging a water bucket over each plant. To dig up a
`
`plant, the user drags and drops a shovel on the plant’s icon.
`
`28.
`
`In the early 1990s, before the World Wide Web became
`
`commercialized, multimedia technology was becoming state of the art. During this
`
`
`
`
`4 The operation of the Forever Growing Garden was televised on The
`
`Computer Chronicles in 1994. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
`
`fZeUehoQKA (from about 9 minutes, 30 seconds to about 11 minutes, 30
`
`seconds).
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`time, interactive CD-ROMs, early commercial Internet sites, high-resolution color
`
`animation, and digital video were state of the art technologies. While at The Carl
`
`Group, I formed the Multimedia Lab. Projects included porting a program to
`
`automate layout of ball grid assemblies (BGA), updating automatic test equipment
`
`software to use state of the art graphical user interfaces, developing graphic
`
`animations, developing multimedia authoring tools, and various interactive CD-
`
`ROM titles. My work with multimedia authoring tools included developing low-
`
`level graphics software for both the Macintosh and IBM PC platforms.
`
`29. We sold our multimedia authoring tools to the public and I developed
`
`an interactive user interface, which allowed users to enter and confirm information
`
`including prices and quantities, which resulted in an order being sent to our server.
`
`30. Also in the mid-1990s, we developed a database driven, on-demand
`
`catalog publish system for Sun, which allowed users to configure and order
`
`products via a graphical user interface. At Sun, I used workstations using Open
`
`Look, which was a graphical user interface based on pioneering work at Xerox
`
`PARC, and which was competitive with X-Windows which was being used by
`
`Hewlett Packard.
`
`31.
`
`In the mid-1990s, I developed a medical communications device that
`
`could transmit medical quality video images over the Internet in real time. This
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`work included developing various graphical user interfaces. I have patents on some
`
`of this technology as discussed below.
`
`32. During this time, I was familiar with the graphical user interfaces in
`
`various medical devices. These included EKG, ultrasound, and medical records
`
`systems.
`
`33.
`
`In many of these professional assignments, I analyzed the
`
`architecture, function, and operation of software with graphical user interfaces.
`
`34. Prior to being retained in this matter, I have acquired and performed
`
`forensic analysis of several computer systems. In particular, in 1999-2002, I
`
`performed the technical analysis of both copyright and trade secrets in the
`
`Tradescape.com, Inc., et al. v. Shivaram, et al. cases. In those cases, I reviewed the
`
`source code and operations of the market-leading day trading systems and illicit
`
`copies. I also surveyed the current state of the art to address the trade secrets versus
`
`what was publicly known. Tradescape was later acquired by E*Trade. As part of
`
`my review of the operations in the Tradescape engagement, I personally observed
`
`day traders conducting tens of thousands of dollars of transactions within seconds.
`
`For example, I observed one trader buy 10,000 shares of stock and then
`
`immediately buy another 10,000 shares using the same default quantity (i.e.,
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`10,000) within two seconds. Then, this same trader sold all 20,000 shares at a
`
`substantial profit less than a minute later.
`
`35.
`
`I worked on the Datamize v. Fidelity, Scottrade, Interactive Brokers
`
`Group, et al. patent case, which involved user interfaces used by the defendants in
`
`their trading software.
`
`36.
`
`I performed a code review for a patent case, Chicago Board Options
`
`Exchange v. International Securities Exchange, which involved security exchange
`
`trading software.
`
`37. Further, I have extensive experience in designing, developing and
`
`analyzing database, networked systems and their user interfaces. As a result, I have
`
`had access to the type of components and information at issue in this case and have
`
`contemporaneous knowledge of what was publicly known.
`
`38. My Curriculum Vitae, which is provided as Ex. 1013, identifies over
`
`60 issued patents and over 60 published patent applications for which I am listed as
`
`an inventor or assignee. Several of my inventions include graphical user interfaces
`
`and networked client-server systems, including:
`
`•
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,590,777, Space equipment recognition and control
`
`using handheld devices
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,500,563, Display, device, method, and computer
`
`program for indicating a clear shot
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,282,493, Display, device, method, and computer
`
`program for indicating a clear shot
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,698,653, Graphical user interface including zoom
`
`control box representing image and magnification of displayed image
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,424,473, System and method for asset tracking with
`
`organization-property-individual model
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,257,158, System for transmitting video images over a
`
`computer network to a remote receiver
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,191,462, System for transmitting video images over a
`
`computer network to a remote receiver
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,803,931, Graphical user interface including zoom
`
`control box representing image and magnification of displayed image
`
`39.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed numerous patents and prior art systems
`
`through my litigation support work, including patents and prior art related to the
`
`architecture and operation of computer systems including graphics. I have taken a
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`number of courses offered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the
`
`Sunnyvale Center for Innovation, Inventions, and Ideas (Sc[i]3).
`
`40. Both Federal and State Courts have recognized me as an expert in
`
`computer software including trading systems and graphical user interfaces,
`
`computer architecture, computer hardware, database systems, networks, and
`
`computer forensic science.
`
`41.
`
`In addition, I recently served as a Special Master in a Federal District
`
`Court in Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Richison and Period Financial, which included
`
`financial systems with graphical user interfaces, and have served as a court-
`
`appointed expert in San Jose, CA in Aspect Communications Corporation v.
`
`eConvergent, Inc. et al., which included financial systems with graphical user
`
`interfaces, and in Ribeiro v. Weichselbaumer, which include financial and
`
`graphical analysis.
`
`Testifying Engagements
`
`A.
`42. Cases in which I have testified as an expert witness at trial or by
`
`deposition during the previous four years are identified as:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Davis and Carlos v. HireVue, Inc. et al., No. 140900780 (Utah State
`
`3rd District Court, Salt Lake County);
`
`Embry v. Acer America Corp., No. 5:09-cv-01808 (N.D. Cal.);
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Futurelogic, Inc. v. Nanoptix, Inc., 2:10-cv-07678 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Hickok, Inc. v. SysTech International, LLC, No. 1:7-cv-03565 (N.D.
`
`Ohio);
`
`Miller v. Fuhu, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-6119-CAS(ASx) (C.D. Cal.);
`
`MyKey Technology Inc. Patent Litigation, No. 2:13-ml-02461 (C.D.
`Cal.);
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-1943 (D.
`Del.);
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-2001(D.
`Del.);
`
`Reporting Technologies, Inc. v. Emma, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01203 (E.D.
`Va.);
`
`Sanford L.P. v. Esselte AB, No. 1:14-cv-07616 (S.D.N.Y.);
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Limited, No. 5:10-CV-25-
`FL (E.D.N.C.);
`
`T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc. v. Secure Axcess, LLC, No
`CBM2015-00027 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board).
`
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., Nos.
`CBM2014-00131, 133, 135, and 137 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board);
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture LLP, 3:08-cv-119 (S.D. Tex.); and
`
`Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc., No. 4:09-cv-1511 (S.D. Tex.).
`
`43. Also the following is the case identification of the cases where I have
`
`provided recent reports or declarations but have not testified:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`GoPro, Inc. v. Contour, LLC , Nos. IPR2015-01078 and IPR2015-
`
`01080 (U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board);
`
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00179, CBM2015-
`
`00181, CBM2015-00182, and CBM2016-00009 (U.S. Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board);
`
`Innersvingen AS v. Sports Hoop, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-05257 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. vs. uCool, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-01267
`
`(N.D. Cal.);
`
`Malanche v. Eisenhower Medical Center, No. INC1108128 (Superior
`
`Court of California, Riverside County);
`
`Miller v. Fuhu, 14-cv-6119, (C.D. CA, Los Angeles);
`
`Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Richison, No. 5:09-CV-00488-W (W.D.
`
`Okla.); and
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`•
`
`Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd. v. FPT Software, No. 0:12-cv-1357
`
`(D. Minn.)
`
`44. Some additional prior cases related to software interfaces, graphics,
`
`and patent analysis, include: Konrad v. General Motors, et al.; ACTV, Inc. and
`
`HyperTV Networks, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., ABC, Inc. and ESPN, Inc.; and
`
`Collaboration Properties v. Polycom.
`
`45.
`
`In Konrad v. General Motors, et al., I analyzed the source code and
`
`operation of data-driven web sites for many of the largest companies in America.
`
`The graphical user interfaces displayed current quantity and pricing, and allowed
`
`order placement and confirmation for airline seats, rental cars, and hotel rooms.
`
`Many of these systems allowed for available commodities to be display in order of
`
`price or other values.
`
`46.
`
`In ACTV v. Disney, I analyzed the Disney (ABC and ESPN)
`
`interactive television system that included an interactive graphical user interface.
`
`47.
`
`In Collaboration Properties v. Polycom, I analyzed video
`
`conferencing systems including telephony and graphics output systems and
`
`standards.
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`48. My Curriculum Vitae is included as Ex. 1013, which contains further
`
`details on my education, experience, publications, and other qualifications to
`
`render an expert opinion. My work on this case is being billed at a rate of $525.00
`
`per hour, with reimbursement for actual expenses. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon the outcome of this covered business method review or the
`
`litigation involving the ’999 Patent.
`
`II. MY UNDERSTANDING OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`49.
`I understand that, during a covered business method review, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification
`
`as would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF OBVIOUSNESS
`
`50.
`
`I am not a lawyer and will not provide any legal opinions. Although I
`
`am not a lawyer, I have been advised certain legal standards are to be applied by
`
`technical experts in forming opinions regarding meaning and validity of patent
`
`claims.
`
`51.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time of the
`
`purported invention, which is often considered the time the application was filed.
`
`This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot be found in a
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the claim can still be
`
`invalid.
`
`52. As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I considered the
`
`following:
`
`• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`• the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`• the sophistication of the technology.
`
`53. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have, as of the priority
`
`date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an
`
`invention is obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that to prove that prior art or a combination of prior art
`
`renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to (1) identify the particular references
`
`that, singly or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify
`
`which elements of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`(3) explain how the prior art references could have been combined in order to
`
`create the inventions claimed in the asserted claim.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include:
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others
`
`in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and
`
`the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`56. Based on the considerations I listed above, I conclude that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (i.e., in the April 9,
`
`1999 timeframe) would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in
`
`computer science or computer engineering, at least 2 years working experience
`
`designing and/or programming graphical user interfaces, and direct or indirect
`
`experience with trading or related systems. Experience could take the place of
`
`some formal training, as domain knowledge and user interface design skills may be
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`learned on the job. This description is approximate, and a higher level of education
`
`or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECT MATTER DISCLOSED IN THE
`’999 PATENT
`A.
`
`Computer Hardware, Software, and Firmware
`
`57. Originally, computers were composed only of physical circuits,
`
`known as hardware,5 that were programmed by physically configuring wires (like a
`
`telephone switch board operator). Computer programs (a series of computer
`
`instructions) stored in memory are known as software,6 because they can be
`
`modified much more easily than hardware. In the late 1970’s, personal computers
`
`(PCs) became commercial products (such as the Apple II in 1977). In some PCs, a
`
`
`
`
`5 Hardware is the tangible components of a computing system, such as
`
`vacuum tubes, wires, circuit boards and other discrete components.
`
`6 Software is a “generic term for those components of a computer system
`
`that are intangible rather than physical. It is most commonly used to refer to the
`
`programs executed by a computer system as distinct from the physical hardware of
`
`that computer system, and to encompass both symbolic and executable forms for
`
`such programs.” (Exhibit 1036, Oxford Dictionary, ‘software’.)
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`bootstrap loader and other basic input and output programs were permanently
`
`stored in hardware chips, known as read-only-memories (“ROM”). These
`
`programs recorded indelibly in ROM were no longer “soft” enough to be modified,
`
`but could be changed by replacing one socketed ROM with another ROM
`
`containing another version of the program. Because they are intimately bonded
`
`with the hardware, these programs are called firmware.7
`
`B.
`58.
`
`Input/Output Adapters and User Input Devices
`
`In addition to the CPU and main memory, a computer usually has
`
`various input and output (or I/O) devices. I/O devices include disks, tapes,
`
`keyboards and other input devices, displays, printers, and communications devices.
`
`Disks and tapes are also known as memory or storage, and (as discussed above) are
`
`distinguished from main memory by the term “secondary memory.” Other input
`
`devices include mice, pens, tablets, touch pads, touch screens, and cameras.
`
`C. Display, Pixel, and Video Frame
`59. When Philo T. Farnsworth invented electronic television in the late
`
`1920’s, he modified a vacuum tube to control the movement of an electron beam
`
`
`
`7 Generally, firmware refers to CPU instructions stored in a programmable
`
`ROM.
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`from the cathode (the negative terminal) on the back the tube to scan across the
`
`screen on the other side of the tube (the anode, or positive terminal). Where the
`
`beam hits the glass (and coating of phosphors) the glass glows. Magnetic coils
`
`deflect the electron beam. In television, the entire front of the tube is scanned
`
`repetitively in a fixed pattern called a raster. The intensity of the electron beam is
`
`modified to change the brightness on point along the raster scan. The result points
`
`on the screen are called picture elements, or “pixels.”
`
`60.
`
`In the United States, the National Television System Committee
`
`(“NTSC”) standard defines a raster of 525 scan lines, which refresh at 30 times a
`
`second. Each time the video screen is refreshed the contents is a frame of video
`
`data. The frame is interlaced with odd and even line fields with a field changing 60
`
`times a second. The NTSC standard also set a 4:3 aspect ratio. Even though there
`
`are 525 lines, the visible area is generally 480 lines high which results in an array
`
`of pixels which is 640 pixels wide, or 640 x 480 pixel resolution.
`
`D. Bits, Bitmaps, Pixmaps, and Graphic Images
`
`61. A binary digit (“bit”) can have a value of zero (0) or one (1).
`
`Computer digital logic uses zero to represent “false” and one to represent “true”,
`
`thus 0 is false and 1 is true.
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`62. A bitmap originally was a data structure having one bit for each
`
`pixel.8 This are now referred to as Black and White (“B&W”) bitmaps, or two
`
`color bitmaps. A one would turn on the electron beam for that pixel and a zero
`
`would turn off the electron beam. A bitmap could be created to define a character.
`
`For example, in CGA a character was defined as an 8x8 bitmap.
`
`63. The same concept was applied to create a color bitmap, or pixel map
`
`(“pixmap”) where more than one bit represents the color for each pixel. Like B&W
`
`bitmaps, a color bitmap is a consecutive array of pixel data, where there more than
`
`one bit makes up the array elements. In some contexts, the term bitmap is used to
`
`refer to pixmaps, as well as B&W bitmaps.
`
`
`
`
`8 In 1984, when the Apple Macintosh was released, it had a black and white
`
`screen and its screen buffer was a true bitmap, named screenBits, in a special
`
`location in main memory. “The Macintosh screen itself is one large visible bit
`
`image. The upper 21,888 bytes of memory are displayed as a matrix of 175,104
`
`pixels on the screen, each bit corresponding to one pixel…The screen is 342 pixels
`
`tall and 512 pixels wide.” (Exhibit 1035, Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, p.
`
`12).
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`64. A bitmap can also be used to store a graphic image as an array of
`
`color values for each point in the image. For example, the Macintosh used bitmaps
`
`for icons in it Graphical User Interface (GUI). Further, Windows and OS/2 have a
`
`bitmap file format (.BMP). JPEG, TIFF, GIF, and PNG also store bitmaps in a
`
`compressed format.
`
`65. Graphic images can also be drawn (or rendered) using graphic
`
`commands. Rectangles, circles, and other polygons can be drawn having different
`
`sizes and colors.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’999 PATENT
`
`66. The ’999 Patent Specification describes a GUI for electronic trading.
`
`(’999 Patent, Abstract, 2:3-6.) FIG. 3A (reproduced below) illustrates an
`
`embodiment of the GUI described in the Specification. As shown, bids (labeled
`
`300) and offers (labeled 304) that are in the market are plotted along a value axis
`
`(labeled 322). (Id. at 6:6-37.) A trader can place an order by dragging-and-
`
`dropping an order icon (e.g., bid order icon 320) to a desired location on the chart,
`
`triggering a pop-up window that allows the trader to send the order. (Id. at 8:38-
`
`67.)
`
`- 25 -
`
`
`
`
`
`67. The ’999 patent’s claims are directed to a “computer based method”
`
`or a “computer readable medium having program code” that include the steps of
`
`receiving and displaying market information, and trade order entry via a
`
`conventional select-and-move or drag-and-drop operation. Claim 1 is illustrative
`
`and is reproduced below:
`
`[P] A computer based method for facilitating the placement of an
`1.
`order for an item and for displaying transactional information to a user
`regarding the buying and selling of items in a system where orders comprise
`a bid type or an offer type, and an order is generated for a quantity of the
`item at a specific value, the method comprising:
`
`- 26 -
`
`
`
`[A] displaying a plurality of bid indicators, each corresponding to at
`
`least one bid for a quantity of the item, each bid indicator at a location along
`a first scaled axis of prices corresponding to a price associated with the at
`least one bid;
`
`[B] displaying a plurality of offer indicators, each corresponding to at
`
`least one offer for a quantity of the item, each offer indicator at a location
`along the first scale
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
