Paper No. ____
` Filed: July 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.;
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; IBFX, INC.; IBG LLC; AND
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Contents
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`The Claimed Invention is a GUI Improvement ............................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Conventional Order Entry Screens around the Time of the
`Invention ................................................................................................ 3
`
`Technical Problems with Conventional Order Entry Screens .............. 8
`
`Technical Solution to the Problems Caused By the Pre-Existing
`Technology .......................................................................................... 11
`
`III. Petitioners’ Subject Matter Eligibility Grounds are Fatally Flawed ............. 18
`
`A.
`
`Alice Prong I: The Claims are not directed to “trading based on
`displayed market information and user input” .................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioners Overgeneralize the Claim Elements ....................... 19
`
`The Claimed Invention is Eligible under Alice Prong I
`Because It Improves the Functioning of the Computer ............ 22
`
`The Claimed Invention is Eligible under Alice Prong I
`Because the Claimed Invention is Undoubtedly Not
`Abstract ..................................................................................... 24
`
`The Claimed Invention is Deeply “Rooted in
`Technology” Because GUIs are Technology and the
`Claimed Invention Improves the Pre-Existing GUIs ................ 25
`
`The Claimed Invention is Eligible under Alice Prong I
`Because It Is Are Not Directed to a Fundamental
`Economic or Longstanding Commercial Practice, A
`Business Method, Or a Generic GUI ........................................ 27
`
`B.
`
`Alice Prong II: Being “known” and “routine and conventional”
`are different concepts, and § 101 is a different test than
`anticipation or obviousness ................................................................. 30
`
`1.
`
`TT’s Claims Are Even More Technological Than Those
`in DDR And Would Exceed a Technological Arts Test ........... 33
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`The Claimed Invention Is New Technology ............................. 35
`
`2.
`
`IV. The Petition Fails to Establish That the Claims Cover Signals ..................... 36
`
`V.
`
`The ’374 Patent Is Not a CBM Patent ........................................................... 38
`
`A.
`
`The ’374 Patent Does Not Claim “Data Processing” or “Other
`Operation” (e.g., a Business Method) ................................................. 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Is Completely Silent as to Whether the ’374
`Patent Is Directed to “Data Processing” or “Other
`Operations” ............................................................................... 40
`
`The ’374 Patent Does Not Claim “Data Processing” ............... 42
`
`The ’374 Patent Does Not Claim “Other Operations” .............. 47
`
`The ’374 Patent Falls Under the Technological Exception ...... 48
`
`B.
`
`Legislative History Confirms that the Claimed Invention is Not
`a CBM ................................................................................................. 52
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 55
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”)—an operating company
`
`headquartered in Chicago—owes its initial (and most substantial) capital
`
`investment to its patent portfolio. TradeStation and Interactive Brokers, both
`
`market place competitors of TT, have filed fifteen CBM petitions against TT’s
`
`patent portfolio. Of those fifteen petitions, eight have been instituted and seven are
`
`pending institution decision.
`
`In preparing this paper, TT reviewed the prior institution decisions and has
`
`attempted to specifically respond on the merits to preliminary viewpoints and
`
`conclusions set forth in the PTAB’s institution decisions and rehearing denials to
`
`the extent relevant here—even if those arguments were not addressed by the
`
`Petitioners.
`
`While some of the high-level arguments (e.g., a specific graphical user
`
`interface (“GUI”) tool is not a CBM and is eligible under §101) have been
`
`presented previously, this paper provides a more detailed response to the Board’s
`
`previous conclusions and reasoning. In fact, in some instances, after reviewing the
`
`previous institution decisions and TT’s prior arguments, TT recognizes that its
`
`previous arguments may not have addressed the preliminary conclusions which
`
`were based on giving substantial benefit of the doubt to Petitioners’ allegations.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`This paper attempts to crystalize TT’s arguments and positions and shed new light
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`on these arguments. This paper also addresses new developments in the case law.
`
`With respect to Petitioners’ CBM and § 101 allegations,1 TT addresses
`
`Petitioners’ mistaken focus on the claimed invention’s ability to be performed on a
`
`general purpose or conventional computer. The Federal Circuit, in Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., recently made clear that this is the wrong focus for determining
`
`what claims are “directed to.” 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the
`
`Federal Circuit instructs that the proper focus is on what the specification purports
`
`the invention or improvement to be. The Federal Circuit also made clear that “an
`
`inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic
`
`arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v.
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`1 Petitioners provide several proposed claim constructions, none of which are
`
`pertinent to the allegations in the Petition. Accordingly, while TT does not
`
`necessarily agree with the proposed constructions, it does not address claim
`
`construction in this paper.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`II. THE CLAIMED INVENTION IS A GUI IMPROVEMENT
`The ’374 patent claims a specific GUI that can be used for data entry by a
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`user to send electronic messages with certain parameters that represent an order to
`
`an electronic exchange. Ex.1001, 1:18-25, 2:66-3:24. The ’374 patent is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent”) (through U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,813,996 (“the ’996 patent”) and shares the same specification as these
`
`patents, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304 (“the ’304 patent”) and 7,676,411
`
`(“the ’411 patent”), also continuations of the ’132 patent. While many of the claim
`
`elements are the same as the ’132, ’304, and ’411 patents, the ’374 claims provide
`
`additional elements that further define the invention.
`
`Like the ’132, ’304, and ’411 patent claims, the structure, make-up, and
`
`functionality of the GUI recited in the ’374 claims (both independent and
`
`dependent claims) solves technical problems that were caused by the structure,
`
`make-up, and functionality of pre-existing GUI tools.
`
`A. Conventional Order Entry Screens around the Time of the
`Invention
`
`In the electronic trading industry, both prior to the time of the claimed
`
`invention and for a period thereafter, there was a widely accepted conventional
`
`wisdom regarding the design of a GUI tool for order entry on electronic exchanges.
`
`Ex.2091, ¶ 19. This conventional wisdom is best illustrated by two types of GUI
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`tools—order entry tickets and Figure 2-style screens. Id. GUI tools such as these
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`represented the engrained conventional wisdom and state of the art regarding how
`
`electronic trading GUIs for professional traders were best designed and
`
`constructed. Id. at ¶¶ 19-21, 24-28.
`
`Order entry tickets were commonly used to enter and send orders to an
`
`electronic exchange. Id. at ¶ 19. Though the structure and make-up of a ticket
`
`could vary, the conventional construction provided a GUI, usually in the form of a
`
`window, with areas for a trader to fill out order parameters (e.g., price, quantity, an
`
`identification of the item being traded, buy or sell). See id. Order ticket were
`
`known as being accurate for order entry, but also widely known as being slow. Id.
`
`Conventional order tickets are still widely used today.
`
`Another type of GUI tool permitted users to enter and send orders by
`
`directly interfacing with displayed prices (e.g., through the use of a mouse). Id. at
`
`¶ 20. Figure 2 of the ’374 patent (reproduced with annotations below) illustrates an
`
`example of one such common GUI tool. Id. at 21. GUI tools like the example
`
`shown in Figure 2 were ubiquitous by the time of the invention for professional
`
`traders. Id. at ¶ 21-28. The overwhelming majority of these GUI tools were
`
`constructed to provide designated locations in the GUI in which the best bid price
`
`and best ask price are displayed. Id. a ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`Best Bid Price is
`Always Displayed
`Here
`
`Best Ask Price is
`Always Displayed
`Here
`
`
`
`The structure, make-up, and functionally of the GUI tool shown in Figure 2
`
`includes a BidPrc column 203 with locations (e.g., cells) in which bid prices are
`
`displayed and an AskPrc column 204 adjacent to the BidPrc column with locations
`
`(e.g., cells) in which ask prices are displayed. Ex.1001, 5:17-26; Ex.2091, ¶ 22.
`
`The best bid price that is currently available in the market (the highest price at
`
`which there is an order to buy for the item being traded at the electronic matching
`
`engine) is always displayed at the top of column 203, and other prices at which
`
`there are other orders to buy pending at the electronic exchange are displayed in
`
`descending price order in the BidPrc column 203, each such price being displayed
`
`in a separate location (e.g., cell). Ex.1001, 5:15-26; Ex.2091, ¶ 22. Similarly, the
`
`best ask price that is currently available in the market (the lowest price at which
`
`there is an order to sell for the item being traded at the electronic matching engine)
`
`is always displayed at the top of column 204, and prices at which there are other
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`orders to sell pending at the electronic exchange are displayed in ascending price
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`order in the AskPrc column 204, each such price being displayed in a separate
`
`location (e.g., cell). Id. The inside market is understood by those of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as meaning the best bid price and best ask price available in the market.
`
`Id. Typically, these GUI tools provided the user the ability to select the number of
`
`rows to be displayed. For example, if a trader desired only to see the inside market,
`
`the trader could limit the GUI tool to display only the top row. Ex.2091, ¶ 26.
`
`The quantities associated with the orders to buy resting at the electronic
`
`exchange are displayed at locations (e.g., cells) in the BidQty column 202. Id. at
`
`5:19-24. The quantities associated with the orders to sell are displayed at locations
`
`(e.g., cells) in the AskQty column 205. Id. Each location (e.g., cell) in the BidQty
`
`column 202 and the AskQty column 205 displays a number indicating the total
`
`quantity resting at the electronic exchange at the price shown in the adjacent
`
`location (e.g., cell) of the corresponding BidPrc column 203 and AskPrc column
`
`204, respectively. Id.
`
`All the displayed prices and quantities illustrated in Figure 2 update
`
`dynamically as such information is relayed from the electronic exchange. Id. at
`
`5:24-26. For example, every time the inside market changes based on updates from
`
`the electronic exchange (in the form of electronic messages over a communication
`
`path), the GUI tool causes the display of price values within the cells of the top
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`row in columns 203 and 204 to change. Ex.2091, ¶ 23. The other displayed bid and
`
`ask prices, as well as the associated quantities located in columns 202 and 205,
`
`similarly change to reflect updates from the market. Id. Therefore, the displayed
`
`prices and quantities are constantly changing in response to updates from the
`
`electronic exchange. However, the locations (or cells) designated for the inside
`
`market remains in the same top row of the display of prices. Id. Thus, the dynamic
`
`GUI tool of Figure 2 is constructed to fix the location of the inside market for a
`
`commodity in a predetermined location of the display (e.g., in the top cells of
`
`columns 203 and 204). Id.
`
`In this type of dynamic screen, there is no price axis. See Fig. 2. In other
`
`words, this GUI tool only displays, in columns 203 and 204, those prices for which
`
`orders are pending at the electronic exchange. This GUI tool does not display price
`
`levels that have no orders. For example, in Figure 2 above, price level 7628 is
`
`omitted, because there is no order pending at the electronic exchange at that price
`
`level.
`
`While some features may have varied from one dynamic GUI tool to
`
`another, there was one constant: the tool displayed (or provided) the best bid price
`
`and the best ask price at fixed, designated locations. Ex.2091, ¶ 25-28. This made
`
`perfect sense and was perceived by those skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`invention as a significant advantage because it emphasized focus on the primary
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`target for the traders: the inside market. Id. The inside market (where an item is
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`trading at a given moment) is the most important information for a trader. In
`
`addition, the inside market was the focus because, prior to the invention, the most
`
`common types of orders were orders made at the inside market (commonly
`
`referred to as “market orders” or “market type orders”). Id. at ¶ 25. The same was
`
`true in the open outcry trading pits, where the inside market was the focus because,
`
`in the pits, trades were only made at the inside market (orders could only be
`
`represented at the inside market prices or better). Since the location of the inside
`
`market is always known, the trader may easily spot the target, regardless of
`
`changes in the market. Id. At any given time, the trader could look at the screen
`
`and immediately know the current state of the market. The conventional dynamic
`
`screens were valued by those skilled in the art at the time of the invention as being
`
`the fastest and most accurate way to enter orders at the inside market. Id.
`
`Technical Problems with Conventional Order Entry Screens
`
`B.
`While the Figure 2-style screens were widely accepted and used by
`
`professional traders interested in speed, Mr. Brumfield, the main inventor of
`
`the ’374 patent, recognized that the structure and make-up of that pre-existing
`
`technology directly caused a problem so significant for him that he used order
`
`tickets instead. In particular, Mr. Brumfield was focused on trading at particular
`
`prices, not the inside market prices, and traded tremendous volume. The fixed
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`location of the inside market cells caused him to miss his intended price as a result
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`of the price changing from under his cursor before he sent his order. Ex.2091, ¶ 31.
`
`As shown in the animation of Exhibit 2212 and the screen capture below, the
`
`prices and quantities in the conventional dynamic GUI tool are constantly changing
`
`within the displayed cells. In this example, the trader wishes to place an order to
`
`buy the contract at the price of 111175. However, as the trader moves the cursor to
`
`the location corresponding to the best ask price of 111175 and attempts to select
`
`that price with the mouse (Time 1), the price changes to 111180 just prior to the
`
`trader clicking the mouse, such that when the mouse is clicked to set and send the
`
`order, it is sent at the wrong price, 111180 (Time 2). This example results in a loss
`
`of $1562.50.
`
`
`
`
`
`Time 1
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`
`
`Time 2
`
`This inaccuracy problem, recognized by Mr. Brumfield, is caused by the
`
`structure, make-up, and functioning of the conventional Figure 2-style GUI – it is
`
`caused by the technology. Ex.2091, ¶¶ 30-31. That the problem may affect a
`
`business issue—the inaccuracy leads to an incorrect order—does not change the
`
`technical nature of the problem. Mr. Brumfield was the ultimate professional
`
`trader, accounting for around 20% of the futures volume of the product he was
`
`trading. His massive volume made this problem he identified especially costly
`
`form Mr. Brumfield—driving him to user the order tickets.
`
`The Federal Circuit described this problem with the prior art when
`
`discussing the patent’s parent patent:
`
`[T]he prior art . . . displays had grids for the inside market that never
`changed. As the market fluctuated, however, the prices listed in those
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`grids changed—often times very rapidly. To buy at the inside market,
`a trader, for example, placed the mouse cursor on the grids for the
`inside market and clicked the mouse. Of course, as traders sent bids
`and offers to the market, the price and quantity of the traded
`commodity changed. These changes altered the inside market. In the
`prior art era with fixed grids for the inside market, traders had a
`problem. A trader who wished to place an order at a particular price
`would miss that market opportunity if the inside market moved as the
`trader tried to enter an order. In a fast moving market, missing an
`intended price could happen often and have very significant economic
`consequences.
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`C. Technical Solution to the Problems Caused By the Pre-Existing
`Technology
`
`In 1998, in an attempt to find a solution to this technological problem, Mr.
`
`Brumfield conceived of a new GUI order entry tool. This GUI tool combined
`
`displaying a plurality of locations aligned along an axis with a plurality of
`
`sequential price levels, where the plurality of sequential price levels is mapped to
`
`the plurality of graphical locations, where this mapping does not change at a time
`
`when the inside market changes, and each of the plurality of graphical locations is
`
`configured such that it can be selected with a cursor through a single action of a
`
`user input device to both set a price parameter and send electronic message
`
`representing an order with that price parameter to an electronic exchange. In
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`addition, preferred embodiments further combined displaying indicators
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`representing the quantity associated with the current highest bid price and lowest
`
`ask price where such indicators move relative to the sequential price levels upon
`
`receipt of updates reflecting changes to the inside market. Mr. Brumfield sketched
`
`out the structure and make-up of the new GUI tool in the following sketch from
`
`September 1998:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Ex.2213.
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`Mr. Brumfield retained a programmer from TT’s consulting business at the
`
`time to build a prototype so that he could test the GUI tool using his normal
`
`approaches in live markets. It took at least six months to build a prototype.
`
`Ultimately, Mr. Brumfield’s testing revealed that his invention was incredibly
`
`advantageous. First, the invention addressed the speed/accuracy problem of
`
`missing a desired price that was problematic in Figure 2-style screens. See
`
`Ex.2091, ¶¶ 29-31. Second, it had the unexpected benefit of providing a more
`
`intuitive visualization that offered a better feel for and quicker reaction to the
`
`market. The overall combination had a dramatic impact on Mr. Brumfield’s
`
`trading—causing his profitability to skyrocket.
`
`The claims of the ’374 patent recite the structure, make-up, and functionality
`
`of the GUI order entry tool, which can be connected to an electronic exchange such
`
`that the tool receives updates from the exchange and can be used to send order
`
`messages to the exchange. For example, the structure, make-up, and functionality
`
`of independent claim 1 includes:
`
`(i) identifying a plurality of sequential price levels based
`on received market data,
`
`(ii) displaying a plurality of graphical locations aligned
`along an axis, where each graphical
`location
`is
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`configured to be selected by a single action of a user
`input device to send a trade order to the electronic
`exchange, where a price of the trade order is based on the
`selected graphical location,
`
`(iii) mapping the plurality of sequential price levels to the
`plurality of graphical locations, where the mapping of the
`plurality of sequential price levels does not change at a
`time when at least one of the current highest bid price
`and the current lowest ask price changes, and
`
`(iv) setting a price and sending the trade order to the
`electronic exchange in response to receiving commands
`based on user actions consisting of: (1) placing a cursor
`associated with the user input device over a desired
`graphical location of the plurality of graphical locations
`and (2) selecting the desired graphical location through a
`single action of the user input device.
`
`See Ex.1001, 8:39-9:5.
`
`The construction (e.g., structure, make-up, and functionality) of the GUI tool
`
`that is recited in independent claim 1 addresses the problem of a user missing the
`
`intended price. For example, independent claim 1 recites “displaying a plurality of
`
`graphical locations aligned along an axis…” and “mapping the plurality of
`
`sequential price levels to the plurality of graphical locations, where the mapping of
`
`the plurality of sequential price levels does not change at a time when at least one
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`of the current highest bid price and the current lowest ask price changes,” and
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`“selecting the desired graphical location through a single action of the user input
`
`device.” Accordingly, because of this structure, make-up, and functionality, the
`
`mapping of the plurality of sequential price levels does not change at a time when
`
`at least one of the current highest bid price and the current lowest ask price
`
`changes. This increased the likelihood of the user getting his/her intended price and
`
`addressed and improved the pre-existing GUI tools – in which it was much more
`
`likely for a user to miss his/her intended price due to the structure of the prior GUI
`
`tool (where the price levels changed in response to every change of the inside
`
`market). Petitioners’ expert even agrees that the invention solves the problem of a
`
`user missing their intended price. Ex.2166, 177:6-182:3.
`
`As stated by the District Court in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
`
`CQG, Inc., regarding the ’132 patent (of which the ’374 patent is a continuation):
`
`[T]he claims are directed to solving a problem that
`existed with prior art GUIs, namely, that the best bid and
`best ask prices would change based on updates received
`from the market. There was a risk with the prior art GUIs
`that a trader would miss her intended price as a result of
`prices changing from under her pointer at the time she
`clicked on the price cell on the GUI. The patents-in-suit
`provide a system and method whereby traders may place
`orders at a particular,
`identified price
`level, not
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`necessarily the highest bid or the lowest ask price
`because the invention keeps the prices static in position,
`and allows the quantities at each price to change.
`
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 2015 WL 774655 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24,
`
`2015); see Ex.2116, 2:40-60, 3:51-61, 7:15-31.
`
`In addition to the claimed invention of independent claim 1, dependent
`
`claims 13 – 15 recite, inter alia, a first indicator and second indicator that move
`
`relative to the graphical locations. As set forth in claim 13, the first indicator
`
`represents quantity associated with at least one order to buy the commodity at the
`
`current highest bid price and the second indicator represents quantity associated
`
`with at least one order to sell the commodity at the current lowest ask price. The
`
`ability of the first and second indicator to move up and down a price axis provided
`
`relative movement between the indicators and the price axis. This relative
`
`movement provided a significant unexpected improvement over the pre-existing
`
`technology. In particular, the inventions of the dependent claims unexpectedly
`
`resulted in the GUI tool providing better visualization of the movement of the
`
`market as compared to the prior art Fig. 2 type GUIs – improving the usability of
`
`the GUI tool.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`The Federal Circuit recognized the advantage of the improved visualization
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`provided by the technology described in dependent claims 13-15 in the ’374
`
`patent:
`
`The claimed invention . . . [has] numerous advantages
`over the prior art. First, a trader can visually follow the
`market movement as the inside market shifts up and
`down along the price column. Id. col. 5 ll. 58-65.
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(citing Ex.2116). Improvements in speed, accuracy, and usability are classic
`
`technological improvements. They are the direct result of improving the
`
`technology. More specifically, the changes to the structure, make-up, and
`
`functionality of the GUI tool led to the improvements in speed, accuracy, and
`
`usability.
`
`Furthermore, the problem of missing an intended price as a result of a
`
`displayed price value changing out from under a user as he/she attempts to click
`
`did not arise in open-outcry systems—the pre-computer analog of electronic
`
`trading. CQG at *4. Also, the claimed combination did not exist prior to the
`
`invention in either the physical world or as a GUI.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`III. PETITIONERS’ SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GROUNDS ARE
`FATALLY FLAWED
`
`TT’s claims contain patent eligible subject matter. TT’s claims are not
`
`directed to an “abstract idea” under Alice Prong I. Instead, the claims are directed
`
`to the structure, make-up, and functionality of a specialized and improved GUI tool
`
`with features that are tangible and can be touched, viewed, and interacted with like
`
`a physical device. Because the claim elements set forth a specific structure and
`
`make-up, the claimed GUI is even more clearly patent eligible than the claimed
`
`invention in Enfish, where the Federal Circuit upheld the patentability of claims
`
`that were directed to improvements in technology that were not tangible, i.e., data
`
`processing. Enfish at *8.
`
`Like Enfish, TT’s claims are directed to a specific implementation of a
`
`technical solution to a problem whose origin was the existing technology at the
`
`time of the invention. Specifically, TT’s invention overcomes technological
`
`problems with prior art GUIs relating to speed, accuracy and usability. Supra at II.
`
`TT’s claims are not just rooted in technology; they define new technology that
`
`overcomes problems with the functionality of prior art GUIs. Id.
`
`That TT’s invention is not abstract is further confirmed by the complete lack
`
`of preemption by TT’s claims. There are a myriad of prior art GUIs and other
`
`GUIs for electronic trading that are not covered by TT’s claims. Ex.2091, ¶ 27.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`TT’s claims are also independently eligible under Alice Prong II because
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`they undoubtedly contain an inventive concept transforming the claimed invention
`
`into an inventive tool rooted in technology. When viewing the claim elements
`
`individually and as an ordered combination, this Prong is independently met.
`
`A. Alice Prong I: The Claims are not directed to “trading based on
`displayed market information and user input”
`
`1.
`
`Petitioners Overgeneralize the Claim Elements
`
`The Petitioners’ 101 arguments improperly simplify the 101 analysis to
`
`“simply ask[ing] whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept” rather
`
`than looking to what the claims are “directed to.” See Enfish at *16. Instead, the
`
`focus of a § 101 analysis begins with examining the “heart” of the claims to
`
`determine whether “the ordered combination of steps recites an abstraction.”
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Accenture
`
`Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013); see also Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343,
`
`1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“basic character”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has recently made clear that this should not focus on
`
`generalizing the claim language, but instead, the focus should be on whether the
`
`claims are “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known
`
`business practices.” Enfish at *16. To determine whether the claims recite an
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`abstraction, the Court has looked at what the claims “purport to improve.” See
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358–59 (2014)
`
`(emphasis added). Recently, the Federal Circuit has performed this analysis by
`
`looking to “specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other
`
`benefits over conventional” ways of performing the asserted abstract idea. See
`
`Enfish at *15. And, whether based on the specification’s disclosure, the claims are
`
`directed to any form of the abstract idea or to a specific solution. See id. at *14.
`
`Petitioners allege that the claims are directed to the abstract concept of
`
`“trading based on displayed market information and user input.” Pet. 29.
`
`Petitioners, however, omit the core features of the claims and instead depict an
`
`over-generalized and “untethered” characterization that cannot be tied to the
`
`claims. The Federal Circuit rejected this practice and cautioned that “describing the
`
`claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the
`
`claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” See Enfish at
`
`*6 (rejecting practice of “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction
`
`and untethered from the claim language…”).
`
`In the ’374 patent, the “heart” of the claimed invention is an improvement to
`
`the structure, make-up, and functionality of a GUI, not “trading based on displayed
`
`market information and user input.” Supra at II. And the Petitioners admit that the
`
`claims are not directed to any form of “trading based on displayed market
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`information and user input” because they explain that the claims “recite arranging
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`market information into a particular format for display to a user.” Pet. 15
`
`(emphasis added). Despite Petitioners’ attempt to dismiss the invention as
`
`“formatting” or “aesthetics,” the invention is about the interface between the user
`
`and the computer. The specification discloses that particular interface “increases
`
`the speed of trading and the likelihood of entering orders at desired prices with
`
`desired quantities,” Ex.1001, 7:15-17, as compared to prior art GUIs for order
`
`entry of the sort shown in Figure 2. Thus, the ’374 patent claims are directed to
`
`software that provides a particular GUI, not “an abstraction” of “trading based on
`
`displayed market information and user input.” Trading is the just the context in
`
`which the claimed GUI tool is used. Indeed, the claims recite the particular
`
`construction of a GUI and the capability it provides with respect to how a user can
`
`interact with the GUI, rather than the user’s decision mak