throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 19
`Entered: December 2, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP.,
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`1
`
`IBG LLC ET AL. - EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD Ameritrade, Inc., and
`
`TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) on May 19, 2014, that requests review under the
`
`transitional program for covered business method patents of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,685,055 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’055 patent”). Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on
`
`September 3, 2014. Paper 17 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a post-grant review may not be
`
`instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . would
`
`demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–19 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’055 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103. We determine that
`
`the Petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the challenged
`
`claims 1–19 are unpatentable, and we institute a covered business method
`
`patent review of claims 1–19 of the ’055 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify numerous related U.S. District
`
`Court cases. Pet. 2–3; Paper 7, 2–5.
`
`Patent Owner also states that related U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 is the
`
`subject of TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Technologies
`
`Internatioanl, Inc., Case CBM2014-00133 (PTAB); that related U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,772,132 is the subject of TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`Technologies International, Inc., Case CBM2014-00135 (PTAB); and that
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 is the subject of TD Ameritrade Holding
`
`Corp. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., Case CBM2014-00136
`
`(PTAB). Paper 7, 5. Patent Owner further states that related U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,766,304 was the subject of Reexamination, Control No. 90/008,577;
`
`and related U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 was the subject of Reexamination,
`
`Control No. 90/008,576 and Reexamination, Control No. 90/011,250. Id.
`
`Related U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 is the subject of CBM2014-00131
`
`(PTAB).
`
`
`
`C. The ’055 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`The ’055 patent is titled “System and Method for Automatic
`
`Repositioning of Market Information in a Graphical User Interface,” and
`
`issued March 23, 2010, from Application No. 11/417,547 filed May 3, 2006.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1. The ’055 patent discloses a graphical user interface (“GUI”)
`
`displaying information related to a commodity and a method of
`
`automatically repositioning the information. Id. at Abstract. The ’055
`
`patent’s Figure 16A is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`Fig. 16A depicts the GUI of the ’055 patent
`
`
`
`The GUI includes a plurality of columns, including a static price axis,
`
`which includes a plurality of price values for the commodity, such as
`
`“102.60.” Id. at Fig. 16A; col. 7, l. 67–col. 8, l. 18.
`
`Columns 1608 and 1610 are aligned with the static price axis and
`
`dynamically display buy (i.e., bid) quantities and sell (i.e., ask) quantities,
`
`respectively, for the corresponding price values of the static price axis. Id. at
`
`Fig. 16A; col. 26, ll. 10–11. Column 1602 displays the last traded price
`
`(“LTP”), and the inside market (i.e., the highest buy price and lowest sell
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`price at which there is quantity currently in the market) is marked with
`
`inside market indicator 1606, which is a solid line spanning columns 1608
`
`and 1610. Id. at Fig. 16A; col. 26, ll. 3–14.
`
`The GUI can re-position a designated item of interest, such as the LTP
`
`or inside market indicator, in the display. Id. at col. 26, ll. 4–45. For
`
`example, if the LTP or inside market moves a designated number of cells
`
`away from the top or bottom of the display screen, the display, including the
`
`static price axis, is repositioned so that LTP or inside market is centered on
`
`the display. See id. Manual re-positioning can also be used in conjunction
`
`with automatic re-positioning. Id. at col. 26, ll. 33–37.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’055 patent is illustrative of the challenged claims and
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for repositioning a static price axis on a graphical
`user interface for displaying market information of a
`commodity being traded at an electronic exchange, the method
`comprising:
`
`receiving market information relating to a commodity from an
`electronic exchange via a computing device, the market
`information comprising an inside market with a current highest
`bid price and a current lowest ask price for the commodity;
`
`displaying a first plurality of price levels along a static price
`axis on a graphical user interface of a display device associated
`with the computing device, where the first plurality of price
`levels range from a lowest value to a highest value along the
`static price axis;
`
`in response to an input command received via an input device
`associated with the computing device, adjusting the first
`plurality price levels among a range of price levels to an
`adjusted plurality of price levels including the first plurality of
`price levels;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`displaying a bid and ask display region on the graphical user
`interface, the bid and ask display region comprising a plurality
`of locations corresponding to the first plurality of price levels
`displayed along the static price axis, wherein each location
`corresponds to one of the first plurality of price levels, and
`wherein a number of the plurality of locations changes
`according to adjusting the first plurality of price levels;
`
`displaying a first indicator representing a quantity associated
`with the current highest bid price at a first location in the
`plurality of locations of the bid and ask display region, wherein
`the first indicator ascends or descends the static price axis as
`changes in the current highest bid price occur as a result of each
`of the plurality of price levels along the static price axis not
`changing positions on the graphical user interface unless a
`reposition command is received;
`
`displaying a second indicator representing a quantity associated
`with the current lowest ask price at a second location in the
`plurality of locations of the bid and ask display region, wherein
`the second indicator ascends or descends the static price axis as
`changes in the current lowest ask price occur as a result of each
`of the plurality of price levels along the static price axis not
`changing positions on the graphical user interface unless the
`reposition command is received;
`
`receiving the reposition command to reposition the static price
`axis when a designated price is within a designated number of
`price levels from the lowest value or the highest value along the
`static price axis; and
`
`responsive to receiving the reposition command, automatically
`repositioning the static price axis on the graphical user interface
`such that a current inside market price is displayed at a new
`desired location.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`D. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner sets forth grounds of unpatentability of the challenged
`
`claims as follows:
`
`Ground Prior Art
`
`§ 101
`
`n/a
`
`§ 103
`
`TSE1
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1–19
`
`1, 3, 4, and 6–19
`
`§ 103
`
`TSE and Gutterman2
`
`2 and 5
`
`§ 103
`
`Silverman,3 Gutterman, and TSE
`
`1–19
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Requirements for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Section 18 of the AIA4 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 the Petitioner
`
`was sued for infringement of the ’055 patent. Pet. 3; Paper 7, 2. For reasons
`
`discussed below, we find that the ’055 patent is eligible for covered business
`
`
`1 TOKYO STOCK EXCHANGE OPERATION SYSTEM DIVISION, FUTURES/OPTION
`PURCHASING SYSTEM TRADING TERMINAL OPERATION GUIDE (1998) (Ex.
`1008).
`2 Gutterman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 (issued Mar. 22, 1994) (Ex.
`1006).
`3 Silverman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 (issued Dec. 31, 1991) (Ex.
`1005).
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`method patent review because at least one claim “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” (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)), and because the claimed subject matter
`
`as a whole either does not 1) recite a technological feature that is novel and
`
`unobvious over the prior art or 2) solve a technical problem using a
`
`technological solution (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b)).
`
`i. Covered Business Method Patent Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1 and 17 claim a method for performing
`
`data processing in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service. Pet. 5 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)). Petitioner argues
`
`that claims 1 and 17 claim such a method because they require only routine
`
`and conventional steps of displaying data on a display. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that, although used in the field of trading, the
`
`’055 patent is not directed to a method of performing data processing in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service
`
`because the inventive aspects of the claims arise from structural and
`
`functional features embodied in a GUI tool, “and not in any business method
`
`or practice.” Prelim. Resp. 17.
`
`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’” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`(statement of Sen. Schumer)). The legislative history indicates that
`
`“financial product or service” should be interpreted broadly. Id. A patent
`
`need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be
`
`eligible for review. Id. at 48,736 (Response to Comment 8).
`
`
`
`Upon review of the record, and taking into account Patent Owner’s
`
`argument, we determine that the ’055 patent is directed to a method for
`
`performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or servic. Claim 1
`
`recites “[a] method for repositioning a static price axis on a graphical user
`
`interface for displaying market information of a commodity being traded at
`
`an electronic exchange.” It recites steps of displaying market information,
`
`such as a static price axis and indicators representing ask and bid
`
`information in the market. Dependent claim 16 recites steps of setting trade
`
`order parameters and sending trade orders to an electronic exchange.
`
`Displaying market information and sending trade orders to an electronic
`
`exchange are activities that are financial in nature. Given this, we determine
`
`that at least claims 1 and 16 of the ’055 patent recite a method for
`
`performing operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service (i.e., trading on an electronic exchange).
`
`ii. Not a Technological Invention Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b)
`
`As indicated above, 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). Petitioner, further, argues that the ’055
`
`patent is a covered business method patent because it is not for a
`
`technological invention because the claims do not recite a technical feature
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and do not solve a technical
`
`problem with a technical solution. Pet. 5–7. First, the Petitioner argues that
`
`the claims do not recite a technical feature because they only recite software
`
`and general computer components, such as a display and input devices. Pet.
`
`5–7. Second, the Petitioner argues that the claims do not solve a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution because the claims are directed to the
`
`known problem of placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic
`
`exchange. Pet. 7.
`
`Conversely, Patent Owner argues that the ’055 patent is for a
`
`technological invention and, therefore, is not a covered business method
`
`patent. Prelim. Resp. 28–37. First, Patent Owner argues that the claims
`
`recite a technical feature because they combine structural and functional
`
`features of the claimed GUI tool in a novel and non-obvious way. Id. at 35–
`
`37. Second, Patent Owner argues that the claims solve the technical
`
`problem of submitting order to the exchange with speed and accuracy with
`
`the technical solution of the combined structural and functional features of
`
`the claimed GUI tool. Id. at 28–35.
`
`
`
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in § 18(d)(1) of
`
`the AIA does not include patents for “technological inventions.” To
`
`determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
`
`“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
`
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). Both prongs
`
`must be satisfied in order for the patent to be excluded as a technological
`
`invention. The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically
`
`do not render a patent a “technological invention”:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`(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.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763–64 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`On this record, and taking into account Patent Owner’s argument, we
`
`are persuaded by Petitioner that the ’055 patent is not for a technological
`
`invention. At least independent claim 1 does not recite a technological
`
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art. Claim 1 recites a
`
`method that requires the display of certain information in a certain
`
`arrangement on a GUI and allows for the repositioning of the information on
`
`the display. Claim 1 requires a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e.,
`
`software).
`
`The ’055 patent discloses that its system can be implemented “on any
`
`existing or future terminal or device” (Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 2–7), which were
`
`known to include displays, and discloses that the input device can be a
`
`mouse (Id. at col. 5, ll. 24–27), which was a known input device. The ’055
`
`patent describes “commercially available trading application[s]” that provide
`
`electronic trading interfaces that display bid and ask quantities in
`
`associations with a static price scale, but states that “[t]he preferred
`
`embodiments . . . are not limited to any particular product that performs the
`
`translation, storage and/or display functions.” Id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 7.
`
`Further, the ’055 patent discloses that the physical mapping of information
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`sent by the exchange to a screen grid (i.e., the GUI) “can be done by any
`
`technique known to those skilled in the art.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 31–35.
`
`Given the above, we determine that claim 1 does not recite a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art. Because
`
`both prongs must be satisfied for a patent to be excluded from covered
`
`business method patent review for being a technological invention, we find
`
`that the ’055 patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review
`
`for at least the reason that claim 1 fails to recite a technological feature that
`
`is novel and unobvious.
`
`Notwithstanding our determination above, on this record, we are also
`
`persuaded by Petitioner the ’055 patent does not solve a technical problem
`
`with a technical solution. The ’055 patent solves the problem of trader
`
`having to read a display of prices for a commodity and enter a trade order
`
`before the price for the commodity changes. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 35–67.
`
`The ’055 patent solves this problem by displaying market information in a
`
`certain arrangement on a GUI and allowing for the repositioning of the
`
`information on the display. As discussed above, claim 1’s use of a display,
`
`an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software) were all known technology.
`
`Given this, we determine that at least claim 1 does not solve a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution and at least claim 1 does not satisfy the
`
`second prong. Accordingly, we find that the ’055 patent is eligible for
`
`covered business method patent review.
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the AIA, we
`
`interpret claims using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`
`“static price axis”
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute in its
`
`Preliminary Response, that “static price axis” is “a price column where
`
`prices ‘do not normally change positions unless a re-centering command is
`
`received.”’ Pet. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 17–18); See Prelim. Resp.
`
`40–43. On this record, we do not find Petitioner’s interpretation of “static
`
`price axis” unreasonable, and adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation.
`
`“single action”
`
`Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute in its
`
`Preliminary Response, that “single action” means “‘any action by a user,
`
`whether comprising one or more clicks of a mouse button or other input
`
`device . . . may be considered a single action of the user.’” Pet.10 (emphasis
`
`omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 27–30); See Prelim. Resp. 40–43. On
`
`this record, we do not find Petitioner’s interpretation of “single action”
`
`unreasonable and adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation.
`
`
`
`C. Ground Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in § 101 of the Patent Act,
`
`which recites:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
`
`process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
`any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`
`
`There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
`
`categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`
`Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is
`
`patent-ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible.
`
`Alice, 132 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must consider “the elements of each
`
`claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
`
`whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
`
`patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297-98). The
`
`claim must contain elements or a combination of elements that are
`
`“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
`
`than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
`
`1294).
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–19 are patent ineligible because they
`
`recite just the abstract idea of “repositioning market information on a
`
`graphical user interface” along with well-known and insignificant extra-
`
`solution activity. Pet. 11–13. Patent Owner argues, generally, that
`
`Petitioner’s argument is unsupported and, therefore, cannot be instituted
`
`upon. Prelim. Resp. 38–40.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a method which falls, nominally, into the
`
`process category of patent-eligible subject matter recited in § 101. Claim 1
`
`recites a method that requires the display of certain information in a certain
`
`arrangement on a GUI and allows for the repositioning of the information on
`
`the display. On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that claim 1 is
`
`directed to the abstract idea of repositioning market information on a
`
`graphical user interface.
`
`The method of claim 1 requires a display, an input device, and a GUI
`
`(i.e., software) for performing the recited steps of receiving market
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`information; displaying the information as indicators in a bid or ask region
`
`along a static price axis; adjusting the price levels of the static price axis;
`
`and repositioning the static price axis in response to a command that is
`
`received when a designated price is a designated number of levels away
`
`from the lowest or highest value of the static price axis. Each of these steps
`
`individually or in combination, require nothing more than a conventional
`
`generic computer.
`
`The ’055 patent discloses that its system can be implemented “on any
`
`existing or future terminal or device” (Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 2–7), which are
`
`known to include displays, and discloses that the input device can be a
`
`mouse (Id. at col. 5, ll. 24–27), which is a known input device. The ’055
`
`patent describes “commercially available trading application[s]” that provide
`
`electronic trading interfaces that display bid and ask quantities in
`
`associations with a static price scale, but states that “[t]he preferred
`
`embodiments . . . are not limited to any particular product that performs the
`
`translation, storage and/or display functions.” Id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 7.
`
`See also id. at col. 25, ll. 13–15 (“[t]he trading application preferably is
`
`X_TRADER®, using an MD_TRADERTM – style display”). Further, the
`
`’055 patent discloses that the physical mapping of information sent by the
`
`exchange to a screen grid (i.e., the GUI) “can be done by any technique
`
`known to those skilled in the art.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 31–35.
`
`Claim 1 does no more than simply instruct the practitioner to
`
`implement the abstract idea on a GUI. To be patent-eligible, a claim cannot
`
`simply state the abstract idea and add the words “apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct.
`
`at 1294. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that claim 1 does not recite
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`additional elements or combinations of elements that add significantly more
`
`to the abstract idea so as to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 17 recites a computer readable medium having
`
`computer-readable instruction that, when executed, causes the computer to
`
`perform the method of claim 1. Dependent claims 2–6 recite limitations
`
`further defining the designated price. Dependent claims 7–14 and 18–19
`
`recite limitations further defining when the repositioning occurs. Dependent
`
`claim 15 recites a limitation further defining the new desired location.
`
`Dependent claim 16 recites steps of setting the parameters of a trade order
`
`and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange. For similar reasons
`
`as discussed above, we find on the present record that claims 2–19 do not
`
`recite additional elements or combinations of elements that add significantly
`
`more to the abstract idea so as to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that claims 1–19 are more likely than not patent ineligible
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`D. Grounds Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent 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 to which said subject
`matter pertains.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966); see KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`
`any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
`
`controls.”).
`
`
`
`i. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–19 over TSE
`
`a. Independent Claims 1 and 17
`
`Petitioner argues that independent claims 1 and 17 are obvious over
`
`TSE. Pet. 18–27. In particular, Petitioner argues that the claimed adjusting
`
`step is met by TSE’s disclosure of moving the Board/Quotation Screen from
`
`a compressed mode to a non-compressed mode (id. at 20–22), and that the
`
`claimed repositioning step is met by TSE’s disclosure of the
`
`Board/Quotation Screen centering on a designated central price when in a
`
`basic board screen mode (id. at 25–27). Petitioner argues that although TSE
`
`“does not explicitly describe that a ‘repositioning command’ is issued by the
`
`software to initiate the repositioning function,” it would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a command to cause the
`
`repositioning when a pre-defined event occurs. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`¶ 88, “Rho Decl.”).
`
`TSE is a guide for operating a trading terminal of the Tokyo Stock
`
`Exchange. Ex. 1008, 1.5 The trading terminal displays a GUI for depicting
`
`market information on a Board/Quotation Screen (see id. at 107). The
`
`Figure on page 107 of TSE is reproduced below.
`
`
`5 We refer to the English translation of TSE (Ex. 1008) and to the pagination
`inserted into Ex. 1008 and not the original pagination.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`Figure depicting the Board/Quotation Screen
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board/Quotation Screen includes a central order price at column
`
`11. Id. at 111. To the left and right of order price column 11, are ask and
`
`bid orders in respective columns 12, 13, and 14. Id.
`
`The Board/Quotation Screen has a compressed mode and an
`
`uncompressed mode. Reproduced below is a Figure that depicts the
`
`Board/Quotation Screen in compressed and non-compressed modes.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`Fig. depicting the Board/Quotation Screen in compressed
`and non-compressed modes
`
`
`
`In non-compressed mode, all prices (i.e., the claimed adjusted price levels)
`
`are displayed on the Board/Quotation Screen, and, in compressed mode,
`
`only prices that satisfy certain conditions (i.e., the claimed first plurality of
`
`price levels), such as having an order, are displayed. Id. at 68. The
`
`Board/Quotation Screen can be moved between the compressed mode and
`
`uncompressed mode by selecting a radio button using a mouse. Id. at 69.
`
`
`
`The Board/Quotation Screen also has a basic board screen mode and a
`
`scrolling mode. Id. at 115. In basic board screen mode, the information is
`
`updated so that a “Board Display Central Price” is always displayed in the
`
`center. Id. TSE discloses that the centering occurs upon the occurrence of
`
`different events, such as if the central price falls within the range of the top
`
`or bottom three prices. Id. In scrolling mode, the central price’s position
`
`does not change automatically (id); however, TSE does discloses a “Home
`
`Button” for returning the Board/Quotation Screen to the basic board screen
`
`centered on the central price (id. at 110, 116).
`
`Given the above, we are persuaded by Petitioner that TSE discloses
`
`the limitations of claims 1 and 17. We are, further, persuaded by Petitioner
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a
`
`repositioning command to cause the repositioning when the pre-defined
`
`event occurs.
`
`Patent Owner argues that “the petition does not explain its proposed
`
`combinations of two different embodiments in TSE, instead simply referring
`
`to the two embodiments as if they were one embodiment.” Prelim. Resp. 45.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument implies that TSE’s compressed mode and non-
`
`compressed mode are alternative embodiments. Id. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument, however, mischaracterizes TSE’s disclosure because TSE’s
`
`compressed and non-compressed modes are not alternate embodiments, but
`
`different display modes of the same Board/Quotation Screen. Ex. 1008, 69.
`
`Upon this record, and taking into account Patent Owner’s argument,
`
`we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1 and 17 are more
`
`likely than not unpatentable as obvious over TSE.
`
`
`
`b. Dependent Claims 3, 4, 6–15, 18, and 19
`
`Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute in its
`
`Preliminary Response, that dependent claims 3, 4, 6–15, 18, and 19 are
`
`obvious over TSE. Pet. 27–32 (citing Rho Decl. ¶¶ 41, 42, 47–50, 91, 92).
`
`Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we are persuaded by
`
`Petitioner that claims 3, 4, 6–15, 18, and 19 are more likely than not obvious
`
`over TSE.
`
`
`
`c. Dependent Claim 16
`
`Dependent claim 16 recites:
`
`displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of
`locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`location corresponding to a price level along the 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.
`
`Petitioner argues that this “single action” limitation is met by TSE’s
`
`description of placing an order by, first, double-clicking a specific area on
`
`the Board/Quotation Screen to open a new order entry window, and then
`
`selecting a send button on the new order entry window. See Pet. 32–34.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the above relied-upon description of TSE does not
`
`meet the limitation because double-clicking the area of the Board/Quotation
`
`Screen and clicking a send button on the new order entry window is not a
`
`selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action
`
`but a selection of two different locations by two actions. Prelim. Resp. 47–
`
`50.
`
`A figure that appears on page 137 of TSE is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket