Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 29
` Entered: January 27, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Patent No. 6,766,304 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
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation Securities, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) on July 20, 2015,
`
`that requests review under the transitional program for covered business
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 34
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2122
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00032
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`method patents of the AIA1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’304 patent”). Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–40 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of the ’304 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, first paragraph.2 Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Revised Preliminary Response on November 30, 2015.
`
`Paper 28 (“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.”
`
`We determine that the Petition demonstrates that it is more likely than
`
`not that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and
`
`we institute a covered business method patent review of claims 1–40 of the
`
`’304 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’304 patent is the subject of numerous related U.S. district court
`
`proceedings. Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 2–6.
`
`
`
`The ’304 patent was the subject of petitions for covered business
`
`method patent review in TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc., CBM2014-00136 (PTAB) and CQG, Inc.
`
`v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., CBM2015-00057 (PTAB).
`
`
`1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`2 We refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112 due to the filing date of
`the ’304 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`Institution of covered business method patent review in both of these
`
`proceedings was denied.
`
`Numerous patents are related to the ’304 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 ’304 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’304 patent is titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid
`
`Display of Market Depth.” Ex. 1001, [54]. The ’304 patent discloses a
`
`display, named the “Mercury” display, and method of using the display to
`
`trade a commodity. Id. at Abstract, col. 3, ll. 9–10. The Mercury display is
`
`a graphic user interface (“GUI”) that dynamically displays the market depth
`
`of a commodity traded in a market and allows a trader to place an order
`
`efficiently. Id. at col. 3, ll. 15–28.
`
`The Mercury display is depicted in Figure 3, which is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`Fig. 3 depicts the Mercury display of the ’304 patent
`
`
`
`The Mercury display includes a plurality of columns. Column 1005 is
`
`a static price axis, which includes a plurality of price values for the
`
`commodity. See id. at col. 7, ll. 56–67. Columns 1003 and 1004 are aligned
`
`with the static price axis and dynamically display bid and ask quantities,
`
`respectively, for the corresponding price values of the static price axis. See
`
`id. at col. 7, l. 54–col. 8, l. 18. Column 1002 contains various parameters
`
`and information used to execute trades, such as the default quantity
`
`displayed in cell 1016. See id. at col. 8, l. 37–col. 9, l. 3.
`
`
`
`A trader executes trades using the Mercury display by first setting the
`
`desired commodity and default parameters, such as default quantity. Id. at
`
`col. 9, ll. 35–49; Fig. 6, step 1302. Then, a trader can send a buy order or
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`sell order to the market with a single action, such as clicking on the
`
`appropriate cell in column 1003 or 1004. See id. at col. 9, l. 39–col. 11,
`
`l. 34; Fig. 6, steps 1306–1315. In the example shown in Figure 3, a left click
`
`on “20” in column 1004 will send an order to the market to buy 17 lots (i.e.,
`
`the default quantity set in cell 1016 of column 1002) at a price of 90. See id.
`
`at col. 10, ll. 39–41.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent is illustrative of the challenged claims and
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for displaying market information relating to and
`facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an electronic
`exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a
`lowest ask price on a graphical user interface, the method
`comprising:
`
`dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of
`locations in a bid display region, each location in the bid
`display region corresponding to a price level along a common
`static price axis, the first indictor representing quantity
`associated with at least one order to buy the commodity at the
`highest bid price currently available in the market;
`
`dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality
`of locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask
`display region corresponding to a price level along the common
`static price axis, the second indicator representing quantity
`associated with at least one order to sell the commodity at the
`lowest ask price currently available in the market;
`
`displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to fixed
`price levels positioned along the common static price axis such
`that when the inside market changes, the price levels along the
`common static price axis do not move and at least one of the
`first and second indicators moves in the bid or ask display
`regions relative to the common static price axis;
`
`displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of
`locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`location corresponding to a price level along the common static
`price axis; and
`
`in response to a selection of a particular location of the order
`entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a
`plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the
`commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic
`exchange.
`
`D. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentabilily
`
`Petitioner sets forth grounds of unpatentability of the challenged
`
`claims as follows:
`
`§ 101
`
`1-40 § 112, first paragraph
`
`""“"°“g°" ‘ms
`
`1-40
`
`E. Expanded Panel Request
`
`Patent Owner suggests that the decision on institution be made by an
`
`expanded panel of administrative patent judges. Prelim. Resp. 78-79.
`
`Discretion to expand a panel rests with the Chief Judge, who, on behalf of
`
`the Director, may act to expand a panel on a suggestion from a judge or
`
`panel. AOL Inc. v. Coho Sicensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2
`
`(PTAB Mar. 24, 2015)(Paper 12)(informative). Patent Owner’s suggestion
`
`was considered by the Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who
`
`declined to expand the panel.
`
`Page 6 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Requirements for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`
`
`Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
`
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`
`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 ’304 patent. Pet. 3; Paper 7, 2.
`
`
`
`i. Covered Business Method Patent
`
`a. Petitioner’s Argument
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’304 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. 8–13. Petitioner argues
`
`that method claim 1 and, its corresponding apparatus claim 27, are directed
`
`to displaying market information and sending trade orders to a financial
`
`market, as indicated by certain financial claim elements. Id. at 11–12.
`
`Those claim elements include: “displaying market information,” “trading of
`
`a commodity,” “electronic exchange,” “bid price,” “ask price,” “a bid
`
`display region . . . corresponding to a price level,” and “setting a . . . trade
`
`order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic
`
`exchange.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 27).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`Petitioner further argues that patents subject to covered business
`
`method patent review are typically classifiable in Class 705 of the Office’s
`
`patent classification system. Pet. 10–11. The ’304 patent is primarily
`
`classified in Class 705, including in 705/35, “Finance (e.g., banking,
`
`investment or credit).” Id. Petitioner, thus, contends that the ’304 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.
`
`Petitioner anticipates Patent Owner’s argument that the legislative
`
`history of the AIA shows that user interfaces for commodities were intended
`
`to be exempt from covered business method patent review. Pet. 17–21.
`
`Petitioner disputes that GUIs for trading commodities are not covered
`
`business method patents. Id. Petitioner acknowledges that whether patents
`
`for user interfaces for commodities were the target of covered business
`
`method patent review is discussed in the legislative history of the AIA and
`
`that the legislative history includes certain statements by Senator Durbin that
`
`patents for such GUIs are not covered business method patents. Id. at 19–
`
`21. Petitioner argues, however, despite these statements and discussions, the
`
`AIA is silent as to any exemption for user interfaces for commodities and the
`
`plain language of § 18 of the AIA encompasses such user interfaces. Id. at
`
`17–21.
`
`
`
`b. Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`
`
`Patent Owner disputes that the ’304 patent qualifies for covered
`
`business method patent review. Prelim. Resp. 52–54, 61–66. According to
`
`Patent Owner, “a proper reading of Section 18 disqualifies, as a threshold
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`matter, patents where the invention resides in the claimed features of a tool,
`
`such as a GUI tool like that claimed in the ’304 patent.” Id. at 62. As
`
`Petitioner anticipates, Patent Owner points to the legislative history and
`
`statements made by Senator Durbin to support its argument. Id. at 62–64
`
`(citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5428, 32–33 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the claims of the ’304 patent are not
`
`directed to a business method or practice and, thus, are not eligible for
`
`covered business method patent review. Prelim. Resp. 59–66. “[Patent
`
`Owner’s] position is that the claims are not directed to business methods or
`
`business practices in any way.” Id. at 61. Although the Patent Owner
`
`acknowledges that the claims of the ’304 patent include financial terms (id.
`
`at 52, 61), Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner fails to establish that the
`
`claims are directed to processing of data for a financial service. Id. at 52–53,
`
`65–66. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner fails to
`
`establish that the claims recite processing data in a business context. Id. at
`
`65 (citing Ex. 2044 (definition of “[b]usiness data processing” as “use of
`
`computers for processing information to support the operational, logistical,
`
`and functional activities performed by an organization”); citing Ex. 2045
`
`(definition of operational process as “[a]ctivities involved in the day to day
`
`functions of the business conducted for the purpose of generating profits.”))
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`c. Analysis3
`
`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 America, 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).
`
`
`3 Both Petitioner and Patent Owner reference our prior decisions denying
`institution in CBM2014-00136 and CBM2015-00057 and decisions of
`district courts in related proceedings. We do not give much, if any,
`deference to our prior decisions and the decisions of the district courts in
`determining whether to institute a covered business method patent review in
`this proceeding. Those prior decisions were based on different parties,
`different evidence, and in the case of the district court proceedings based on
`different standards of proof and 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.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent recites “[a] method for displaying market
`
`information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded
`
`in an electronic exchange” Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 35–37. Claim 27 recites
`
`“[a] computer readable medium having program codes recorded thereon” for
`
`causing a computer to perform the method of claim 1. See id. at col. 14, ll.
`
`47–53. The claim 1 method recites steps of displaying financial information
`
`(i.e., data), such as indicators representing a quantity associated with an
`
`order to buy the commodity or an order to sell the commodity. Id. at col. 12,
`
`ll. 41–61. The indicators are displayed in certain regions, such as bid or ask
`
`display regions, which are positioned along a static price axis. Id. The
`
`claimed method also recites steps of displaying an order entry region for
`
`receiving commands to send trade orders, setting trade order parameters, and
`
`sending trade orders to the electronic exchange. Id. at col. 12, l. 62–col.13,
`
`l. 3.
`
`Claim 1 encompasses processing financial data, associated with a
`
`commodity, for display and processing financial data for sending a trade
`
`order for a commodity to an exchange. See Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 3
`
`(“[t]he present invention processes this information and maps it . . . to a
`
`screen.”); col. 11, ll. 50–52 (“[t]he process for placing trade orders using the
`
`Mercury display”). This processing of financial data is used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a commodity, which is a financial
`
`product, and in the practice, administration, or management of electronic
`
`trading with an exchange, which is a financial service or activity.
`
`Displaying financial market information for a commodity and placing trade
`
`orders for a commodity are activities that are financial in nature.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`Although not dispositive, the ’304 patent is primarily classified in
`
`Class 705, including in 705/35, Finance (e.g., banking, investment or credit).
`
`See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,739; see Versata at 1324, n.14 (noting that while
`
`Class 705 “apparently served as the original template for the definition of a
`
`‘covered business method,’ . . . [it] was thought to be too narrow”) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`We determine, based on this record, that the ’304 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 the Patent Owner that the ’304 patent is not a
`
`covered business method patent because it does not claim processing data in
`
`a business context. Prelim. Resp. 52–51, 65–66. As discussed above, we
`
`determine that the ’304 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. Even assuming,
`
`however, that the statute required the data processing to be business data
`
`processing, as defined by Patent Owner, the ’304 patent claims meet Patent
`
`Owner’s narrow definition. In particular, the ’304 patent claims require
`
`processing market information for display on a GUI and for placing trade
`
`orders through the use of a GUI, and, therefore, “use[s] computers for
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`processing information to support the operational, logistical, and functional
`
`activities performed by an organization” (id. at 65). .
`
`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. As Petitioner argues, 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. 63–
`
`64 (reproducing statements by Senator Durbin and Schumer)), the language
`
`of the AIA, as passed, does not include an exemption for all user interfaces
`
`for commodities from covered business method patent review. See Pet. 18–
`
`21. Each claimed invention has to be evaluated individually to determine if
`
`it is eligible for a 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).
`
`
`
`ii. 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`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.
`
`(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 at 1326–7. For the reasons discussed
`
`below, we determine that the ’304 patent is not for a technological invention
`
`because it does not solve a technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`We, thus, do not need to address whether the ’304 patent recites a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.
`
`
`
`a. Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’304 patent does not solve a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution. Pet. 17. According to Petitioner, the
`
`’304 patent solves the problem of “placing a trade order for a commodity on
`
`an electronic exchange,” which is a financial issue, not a novel technical
`
`problem. Id. Petitioner argues that graphically displaying trade information
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`and “[s]ending trade orders is well-known, as are computer user interfaces
`
`that facilitate this process.” Id. at 14. Petitioner points to statements about
`
`prior art systems in the ’304 patent, itself, and prior art in the prosecution
`
`history to support its argument. Id. at 14–16.
`
`
`
`b. Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that the ’304 patent solves a technical problem
`
`using a technical solution. Prelim. Resp. 55–58, 66–67, 69–76. According
`
`to Patent Owner, the ’304 patent solves a speed and accuracy problem found
`
`in prior trading GUIs with an improved GUI tool. Id. Patent Owner argues
`
`that in GUIs that use single action order entry, there is risk that a trader
`
`could miss his intended price when placing an order because of rapidly
`
`changing market information. Id. at 69–73.
`
`
`
`c. Analysis
`
`The ’304 patent discloses that exchanges are volatile and move
`
`rapidly, and that to profit, a trader must react quickly. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 7–
`
`9.
`
`To profit in these markets, traders must be able to react quickly.
`A skilled trader with the quickest software, the fastest
`communications, and the most sophisticated analytics can
`significantly improve his own or his firm’s bottom line. The
`slightest speed advantage can generate significant returns in a
`fast moving market. In today’s securities markets, a trader
`lacking a technologically advanced interface is at [a] sever
`competitive disadvantage.
`
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 7–15. “The more time a trader takes entering an order, the
`
`more likely the price on which he wanted to bid or offer will change or not
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`be available in the market” because “[t]he market is fluid as many traders are
`
`sending orders to the market simultaneously.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 51–55. “If a
`
`trader intends to enter an order at a particular price, but misses the price
`
`because the market moved before he could enter the order, he may lose
`
`hundreds, thousands, even millions of dollars.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 61–65.
`
`
`
`As can be seen from the above, the problem disclosed in the ’304
`
`patent is the placing of trader orders on a market or exchange that is rapidly
`
`changing, so as to make a profit. As Petitioner points out (Pet. 17), this is a
`
`financial issue or a business problem, not a technical problem. If the market
`
`or exchange did not rapidly change, then there would be no need for a trader
`
`to enter orders rapidly or for a GUI to accomplish such.
`
`
`
`The ’304 patent discloses a solution to this problem — a GUI that
`
`allows a trader to rapidly and to accurately place trading orders. Id. at col. 3,
`
`ll. 1–8. Patent Owner argues that the claimed GUI is a technical solution.
`
`E.g., see Prelim. Resp. 67. However, as discussed above, mere recitations of
`
`known computer technology, such as display devices or software, and
`
`combinations of prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected, or
`
`predictable result of that combination do not render an invention
`
`technological. Taking claim 1 as representative, we are not persuaded on
`
`this record, that the ’304 patent discloses a technological invention. Claim
`
`27 corresponds to claim 1 and requires software that causes a computer to
`
`execute the method required by claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent recites “a method for displaying market
`
`information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded
`
`in an electronic exchange” Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 35–37. The electronic
`
`exchange has an inside market displayed on a GUI. The ’304 patent, itself,
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`discloses that software for creating GUIs for trading on an exchange are
`
`known. Id. at col. 1, l. 63–col. 2, l. 6.
`
`The claimed method recites steps of displaying financial information
`
`(i.e., data), such as indicators representing a quantity associated with an
`
`order to buy the commodity or an order to sell the commodity. Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 12, ll. 41–61. The indicators are displayed in certain regions, such as
`
`bid or ask display regions, which are positioned along a static price axis. Id.
`
`These steps require mapping market information to a market grid on display
`
`on the GUI. The ’304 patent itself discloses that “[t]he physical mapping of
`
`such information to a screen grid can be done by any technique known to
`
`those skilled in the art. The present invention is not limited by the method
`
`used to map the data to the screen display.” Id. at col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 7.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’304 patent4 depicts a known trading GUI that includes
`
`regions for displaying indicators of bid and ask quantities and regions for
`
`displaying corresponding prices.
`
`Claim 1 requires that locations in the bid and ask regions correspond
`
`to locations on a static price axis. The use of a static price axis, having
`
`corresponding bid and ask columns, on a trading GUI was known. Ex. 1016,
`
`1075 (depicting a trading screen having a central order price column and ask
`
`and bid orders in adjacent corresponding columns); see Ex. 1009, 17–18
`
`(providing additional explanation), Pet. 36–37.
`
`
`4 Patent Owner indicates that Figure 2 of the ’304 patent depicts a
`“conventional prior art” screen. Prelim. Resp. 7, 69, 73.
`5 We refer to the pagination inserted into Exhibit 1016 and not to the original
`pagination. Exhibit 1016 is a foreign language reference, and an English
`translation is provided as Exhibit 1017.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
` Claim 1 also recites steps of displaying an order entry region for
`
`receiving commands to send trade orders, setting trade order parameters, and
`
`sending trade orders to the electronic exchange with a single action. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 12, l. 62–col.13, l. 3. Tools that permit single action entry of an
`
`order, which has preset default parameters, by clicking on a cell in the screen
`
`(e.g., the location for the best bid or best ask prices) are known. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 71 (citing Ex. 2091 ¶¶24–28 (testimony of Christopher Thomas)); Ex.
`
`1001, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`The ’304 patent discloses that its system can be implemented “on any
`
`existing or future terminal or device” (Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 9–15), which are
`
`known to include displays, and discloses that the input device can be a
`
`mouse (id. at col. 4, ll. 13–19), which is a known input device.
`
`As can be seen from the above, the ’304 patent is not for a
`
`technological invention because it merely recites known computer
`
`technology, such as a display device or software, and combinations of prior
`
`art structures to achieve the normal, expected, or predictable result of that
`
`combination. On this record, we determine that the ’304 patent does not
`
`solve a technical problem using a technical solution. The ’304 patent, thus,
`
`is eligible for covered business method patent review.
`
`
`
`B. 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); See In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268,
`
`1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under that standard, and absent any special
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`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. “common static price axis”
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim term “common static price axis” is “a reference line or column of price
`
`levels that is common to the bid and ask display regions where the price
`
`levels do not change positions unless a re-centering command is received.”
`
`Pet. 23. Petitioner further argues that this limitation should include “a price
`
`axis in which only some prices in a price column are static rather than
`
`requiring all prices in the price column to be static.” Id.
`
`
`
`Similarly to Petitioner’s proposed interpretation, Patent Owner
`
`proposes that this limitation should be interpreted to be “a line comprising
`
`price levels that do not change positions unless a manual re-centering
`
`command is received and where the line of prices correspond to at least one
`
`bid value and one ask value.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Patent Owner, however,
`
`disputes that this limitation encompasses a price axis or column that has both
`
`static and non-static price levels. Id. at 13–14.
`
`
`
`We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “common
`
`static price axis” is, as proposed by Petitioner, “a reference line or column of
`
`price levels that is common to the bid and ask display regions where the
`
`price levels do not change positions unless a re-centering command is
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 34
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00161
`Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`received.” This is consistent with the ’304 patent, which states that “[t]he
`
`values in the price column are static; that is they do not normally change
`
`positions unless a re-centering command is received.” Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll.
`
`65–67.
`
`
`
`We, however, are not persuaded by Petitioner that this interpretation
`
`encompasses a price axis or column that has both static and non-static price
`
`levels. The broadest reasonable interpretation requires that the price levels
`
`do not change position unless a re-centering command is received. The
`
`price axis would not be static unless all the price levels were also static.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii. Other Terms
`
`We do not need to construe any other claim terms for the purposes of
`
`ou