Paper No. ____
` Filed: November 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.;
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, 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 RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`Contents
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`RECENT § 101 CASES HAVE CLARIFIED THE TEST FOR
`PATENT ELIGIBILITY ................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The patent’s specification is used to determine the nature of the
`invention ................................................................................................ 4
`
`Claims should not be overgeneralized or simplified into their
`“gist” or core principles when identifying what the claims are
`“directed to” under prong I of the Alice test ......................................... 8
`
`Claims are eligible under Alice prong I when the claims are
`directed to a particular solution to achieve a result ............................... 8
`
`Claims are eligible under Alice prong I if the claims are
`narrowly drawn to not preempt any and all generic
`enhancements ......................................................................................10
`
`Claims are eligible under Alice prong II if there is a “non-
`conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
`conventional pieces”............................................................................11
`
` TT’S CLAIMS ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE UNDER BOTH PRONGS III.
`
`
`OF THE ALICE TEST ...................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`The nature of the claimed invention is confirmed by the
`specification .........................................................................................13
`
`B. Under Alice prong I, the claims are “directed to” a particular
`structure, makeup, and functionality of a GUI and cannot be
`overgeneralized to being “directed to” merely a fundamental
`economic activity or a generic GUI ....................................................23
`
`1.
`
`The claims require constructing a GUI with a particular
`structure, makeup, and functionality .........................................23
`
`C.
`
`The claims improve GUI technology ..................................................25
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`The ’374 claims are eligible under Alice prong I because the
`’374 claims are directed to a particular solution to achieve a
`result ....................................................................................................27
`
`The ’374 claims are patent eligible because the combination of
`elements in the claims does not preempt the alleged abstract
`idea ......................................................................................................31
`
`The ’374 claims are eligible under Alice prong II because the
`claims set forth an inventive concept ..................................................34
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
` TT’S CLAIMS ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER FEDERAL CIRCUIT IV.
`
`
`CASE LAW REGARDING USER INTERFACE INVENTIONS...............36
`
`A.
`
`Case where the interface improvement was patent eligible ................38
`
`1.
`
`DDR: Claims to a particular way of solving a problem
`with interface functionality are patent eligible .........................38
`
`B.
`
`Cases where the invention was not related to the interface ................41
`
`1. Mortgage Grader: The purported invention was a process
`for anonymous loan shopping, not a specific interface ............41
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Electric Power: Claimed ancillary displaying of results,
`rather than a new technique or tool for how results are
`displayed ...................................................................................43
`
`Affinity Labs v. DirectTV: Merely claimed an interface
`that “allows” a step of the abstract idea to be performed .........45
`
`C.
`
`Cases where the claims preempted the result of applying an
`abstract idea to an interface rather than being limited to a
`particular solution to achieve the result ..............................................46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Capital One: Attempted to preempt application of pre-
`Internet concepts on a website ..................................................46
`
`Affinity Labs v. Amazon: Results-focused claim covered
`any form of customizing an interface .......................................48
`
`Internet Patents: Claimed the result of maintaining state
`rather than how it was accomplished ........................................50
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`PETITIONERS MISCONSTRUE THE CLAIMS AND THE LAW
`TO ASSERT THAT THE CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE ........51
`
`V.
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The claims are not directed to “trading based on displayed
`market information and user input” ....................................................51
`
`Improving a computer component confers patent eligibility ..............52
`
`Inventions do not fail the patent-eligibility test because they can
`be practiced on a general-purpose computer .......................................55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Use of a general-purpose computer does not doom the
`claims ........................................................................................55
`
`Software inventions are patent eligible .....................................55
`
`TT’s claims are not directed to using a generic computer
`to perform an “undisputedly well-known” practice that
`“humans have always performed” ............................................56
`
`Inventions do not fail the patent-eligibility test because they
`benefit a human user............................................................................57
`
`Inventions do not fail the patent-eligibility test because a person
`could perform the functions manually ................................................58
`
`Ultramercial’s degree of particularity referred to extra-solution
`activity .................................................................................................60
`
` THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIMS VI.
`
`
`COVER SIGNALS ........................................................................................60
`
`
`
` THE ’374 PATENT IS NOT A CBM PATENT ...........................................62 VII.
`
`A.
`
`The ’374 patent does not claim “data processing” or “other
`operations” (e.g., a business method) ..................................................64
`
`1.
`
`The Petition is completely silent as to whether the ’374
`patent is directed to “data processing” or “other
`operations” ................................................................................64
`
`2.
`
`The ’374 patent does not claim “data processing” ...................66
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`Under the USPTO’s own definition of “data
`processing,” the ’374 patent is not directed to “data
`processing” .....................................................................66
`
`TT is not advocating a narrow interpretation of the
`statute that requires “data processing to be
`business data processing” ...............................................68
`
`The PTAB relied upon incorrect interpretations of
`statements from the specification to conclude that
`the claim was directed to “data processing” ...................69
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’374 patent falls under the technological exception ....................71
`
`Legislative history confirms that the claimed invention is not a
`CBM ....................................................................................................74
`
`
`
` CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................77 VIII.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`No. 2015-2080, 2016 WL 5335502 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) .................... 48, 49
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`No. 2015-1845, 2016 WL 5335501 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) .......................... 45
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) ........................ 7, 10
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l
`Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 119 (2015) ................ 56
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 58, 59
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 43, 44
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .............................................................................................. 59
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 46, 47
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 39, 50
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`No. 2015-1080, 2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) ...................passim
`
`Ex parte Mewherter,
`Appeal 2012-007692, Slip op. (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2013) ............................... 61, 62
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 41, 42, 55
`
`O’Reilly v. Morse,
`56 U.S. 62 (1853) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`No. 2015-1599, 2016 WL 6068920 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2016) ........................... 59
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.,
`No. 05-cv-4811, 2015 WL 774655 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) ................. 28, 30, 72
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 29, 30, 65
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 3, 24, 60
`
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 24, 72
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`AIA § 18 ............................................................................................................passim
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`The claims of the ’374 patent are patent eligible because they are not
`
`directed to an “abstract idea,” but are instead directed to the specific structure,
`
`makeup, and functionality of a technological graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool
`
`that can be used for electronic order entry. The specification discloses the claimed
`
`invention as a particular way of constructing a GUI that solves a problem with the
`
`construction of prior GUIs. In other words, the claimed invention explains “how”
`
`to construct a particular GUI.
`
`Recent Federal Circuit cases confirm the patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101 of claims such as TT’s that are limited to a particular way of achieving a
`
`result. This also holds true for cases involving user interfaces: claims limited to a
`
`particular way of solving a specific problem with a specific interface are eligible,
`
`whereas claims that cover any generic user interface added to an abstract idea are
`
`not. Here, the claimed invention provides a specific way (i.e., process for providing
`
`detailed structure, makeup, and functionality) to construct a GUI. This way of
`
`constructing a GUI achieves a result. TT does not claim any of the bare results of
`
`displaying market information and entering trade orders or “improving the speed,
`
`accuracy, and usability” of a GUI. The Petition expressly admits as much, stating
`
`that the claims of the ’374 patent are to “a particular format for display to a user.”
`
`Pet. 15 (emphasis added). The Petition also admits that the specification describes
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`“a particular arrangement of how information is displayed and how the trader
`
`interacts with the screen.” Pet. 9 (emphases added). Although the claims cover
`
`more than this, at least in view of these admissions, the Petition cannot succeed.
`
`While Petitioners request that this Board overgeneralize TT’s claims to
`
`arrive at a purported “abstract idea” untethered from specific limitations in the
`
`claims, a review of those specific limitations reveals that the claims are narrowly
`
`drawn to a specific implementation. To be sure, the ’374 patent does not simply
`
`claim its invention to be the concept of “trading based on displayed market
`
`information and user input,” Petitioners’ purported abstract idea, Pet. 29, or
`
`“receiving user input and placing a trade order,” the PTAB’s purported abstract
`
`idea, ID. 19. This error with Petitioners’ purported abstract idea is easily revealed
`
`by the myriad of other implementations for receiving user input and placing a trade
`
`order based on displayed market information that are not preempted by TT’s
`
`claims. At least in view of this deficiency, the Petition cannot succeed.
`
`Moreover, the ’374 claims do not recite a generic interface or display, and
`
`thus Petitioners’ citations to such cases are inapposite. Indeed, even a cursory
`
`review of the claims reveals that they are specifically directed to the very “how”
`
`the Federal Circuit found lacking in other cases. Further, following the Federal
`
`Circuit’s guidance, the specification’s detailed disclosure of how the claimed
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`invention improves upon and differs from the construction of prior art GUIs shows
`
`that the claimed invention is patent eligible.
`
`Finally, even if this Board were to continue to find the claims direct to an
`
`abstract idea, the evidence and testimony identified below shows that the claims
`
`include an inventive concept. Namely, the specification details how the claims
`
`provide a technical solution to the technological problem created by the
`
`construction of prior GUI tools. Further, testimony submitted by TT’s witnesses
`
`show that neither the claimed elements nor the combination as a whole are directed
`
`to routine and conventional technology. Ex.2169, ¶¶ 43-115. Instead, at a
`
`minimum, the overall ordered combination of the claims as a whole is indisputably
`
`unconventional and provides a radical departure from the prior art by solving the
`
`technological problem at stake.
`
` RECENT § 101 CASES HAVE CLARIFIED THE TEST FOR II.
`
`
`PATENT ELIGIBILITY
`In Alice, the Court provided a two-prong test. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). In prong I, the focus of a § 101 analysis begins with
`
`examining the claims in light of the specification to determine whether the
`
`“ordered combination of steps recites an abstraction.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
`
`LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
`
`Am. Inc., No. 2015-1080, 2016 WL 4896481, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)
`
`(“[A] court must look to the claims as an ordered combination, without ignoring
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`the requirements of the individual [elements].”). Only if the claims are directed to
`
`an abstract idea does a tribunal need to assess the next prong of Alice. In prong II, a
`
`claim that is “directed to” an abstraction can still be patent eligible if it contains
`
`elements or a combination of elements “sufficient to ensure that the patent in
`
`practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.”
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citation omitted). The concern undergirding § 101 is
`
`preemption of fundamental concepts. See id. at 2354-55, 58.
`
`The Federal Circuit has continued to clarify this test and the underlying
`
`principles that should be considered when analyzing both prongs.
`
`A. The patent’s specification is used to determine the nature of the
`invention
`Determining patent eligibility under either prong of Alice focuses not only
`
`on the claims but also the corresponding disclosure about what the invention is. In
`
`both Enfish and McRO, the Court looked to the specification to determine the
`
`nature of the invention the claims were “directed to.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, 2016 WL 4896481, at *7.
`
`In Enfish, the court reasoned as follows:
`
`Here, the claims are not simply directed to any form of
`storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed
`to a self-referential table for a computer database. For
`claim 17, this is reflected in step three of the “means for
`. The
`configuring” algorithm described above
`. . .
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`necessity of describing the claims in such a way is
`underscored by the specification’s emphasis that “the
`present invention comprises a flexible, self-referential
`table that stores data.” The specification also teaches
`that the self-referential table functions differently than
`conventional database structures. According to the
`specification, traditional databases, such as “those that
`follow the relational model and those that follow the
`object oriented model” are inferior to the claimed
`invention. While “[t]he structural requirements of current
`databases require a programmer to predefine a structure
`and subsequent [data] entry must conform to that
`structure,” the “database of the present invention does not
`require a programmer to preconfigure a structure to
`which a user must adapt data entry.” Moreover, our
`conclusion
`that
`the claims are directed
`to an
`improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by
`the specification’s teachings that the claimed invention
`achieves other benefits over conventional databases,
`such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and
`smaller memory requirements.
`
`Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (citing Openwave
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d 509, 513–14 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding that a
`
`specification’s disparagement of the prior art is relevant to determine the scope of
`
`the invention).)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Likewise, in McRO, the Court reasoned as follows:
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`As the specification confirms, the claimed improvement
`here is allowing computers to produce “accurate and
`realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in
`animated characters” that previously could only be
`produced by human animators. . . . [T]his computer
`automation is realized by improving the prior art through
`“the use of rules, rather than artists, to set the morph
`weights and transitions between phonemes.” The rules
`are limiting in that they define morph weight sets as a
`function of the timing of phoneme sub-sequences. . . .
`The claimed rules here . . . are limited to rules with
`certain common characteristics, i.e., a genus.
`
`McRO, 2016 WL 4896481, at *7 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
`
`As discussed in more detail below, the present case is similar to Enfish and
`
`McRO, in that (1) the claims are directed to a particular way of solving a problem
`
`and (2) the specification explains the claimed improvement over the prior art. Infra
`
`at III.A, III.D. Specifically, the specification explains that the construction of the
`
`prior art (as shown in FIG. 2 of the specification and discussed in section III.A
`
`below) causes certain problems. Ex.1001, 6:61-7:21. The claimed invention, which
`
`recites the particulars of “how” to construct a GUI that improves the prior art
`
`construction, solves those problems. Infra at III.A-B, III.D. Specifically, the
`
`specification explains that the claimed process is an improvement to the
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`construction of the GUI that prevents a user from missing their price, improving
`
`accuracy, and usability. Ex.1001, 6:61-7:21.
`
`Similarly, in Bascom, the Court used the specification’s teachings to
`
`determine what the inventive concept of the claims was. Bascom Glob. Internet
`
`Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And,
`
`in Amdocs, the claims were found to be patent eligible based on the patent’s
`
`explanation of how the invention required conventional computer components to
`
`operate in a different manner than the distinguished prior art. Amdocs (Israel) Ltd.
`
`v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387, at *9-10 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Nov. 1, 2016). Based on that disclosure, the Court concluded that the “claim entails
`
`an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion)
`
`to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required
`
`massive databases),” which made the claims patent eligible. Id. at *10.
`
`Of course, this practice of looking to the specification to determine what the
`
`nature of the invention is not new. For example, in DDR, the Court formed its
`
`opinion based on what the specification explained the nature of the invention to be.
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1248-49 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`B. Claims should not be overgeneralized or simplified into their
`“gist” or core principles when identifying what the claims are
`“directed to” under prong I of the Alice test
`Recently, the Federal Circuit has criticized lower court decisions for
`
`oversimplification of the claimed invention. In McRO, the Court cautioned that
`
`courts “must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims” by looking at them
`
`generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO,
`
`2016 WL 4896481, at *7 (citation omitted). In Enfish, the Court also made clear
`
`that prong I should not focus on generalizing the claim language, but instead, “the
`
`‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the
`
`specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded
`
`subject matter.’” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (citation omitted).
`
`As discussed in more detail below, Petitioners are overgeneralizing TT’s
`
`claims because Petitioners ignore nearly the entire claim and the inventive
`
`combination of elements. In order to arrive at the Petitioners’ alleged abstract idea,
`
`the specifics of the claims and the disclosure of the specification need to be
`
`ignored. Infra at III.
`
`C. Claims are eligible under Alice prong I when the claims are
`directed to a particular solution to achieve a result
`
`The Federal Circuit has emphasized that it is “sufficient to compare claims
`
`at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous
`
`cases.” Id. at 1334.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`To determine whether the claims recite an abstraction, the Court has looked
`
`at what the claims “purport to improve.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59
`
`(emphasis added). The Court performed this analysis by looking to “the
`
`specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over
`
`conventional” ways of performing the asserted abstract idea, see Enfish, 822 F.3d
`
`at 1337, and whether, based on the specification’s disclosure, the claims were
`
`directed to any form of the abstract idea or to a specific solution, see id. at 1335-
`
`36.
`
`In McRO, the Court continued to “look to whether the claims in these
`
`patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology
`
`or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely
`
`invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, 2016 WL 4896481, at *8. This
`
`is because the preemption concern that underlies § 101 jurisprudence only arises
`
`when the claims are not directed to a specific invention and instead improperly
`
`monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Id. (citation
`
`omitted). Accordingly, the result-focused claims were found to preempt too much
`
`because such claims “would prohibit all other persons from making the same thing
`
`by any means whatsoever.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, the abstract-idea exception
`
`prevents patenting a result where “it matters not by what process or machinery the
`
`result is accomplished.” Id. (citation omitted). In contrast, a “patent may issue ‘for
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`the means or method of producing a certain result, or effect, and not for the result
`
`or effect produced.’” Id. (citation omitted). This is not new, but is instead rooted in
`
`a holding from the beginning of patent-eligibility jurisprudence—O’Reilly v.
`
`Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1853).
`
`As explained in more detail below, TT’s claims are directed to a specific
`
`implementation—that is, a specific GUI. Infra at III.A-D. They are not directed to
`
`a generic result or effect. Id. The claim elements in the ’374 patent provide for a
`
`very specific implementation and avoid the Court’s concern of making the same
`
`thing by any means whatsoever.
`
`D. Claims are eligible under Alice prong I if the claims are narrowly
`drawn to not preempt any and all generic enhancements
`
`It is Petitioners’ burden to prove that the claims attempt to preempt any and
`
`all generic ways of accomplishing an abstract idea. For example, in Amdocs, the
`
`claims were patent eligible because the claims were “narrowly drawn to not
`
`preempt any and all generic enhancement of data in a similar system.” Amdocs,
`
`2016 WL 6440387, at *10. As evidence of this fact, the Court pointed to the
`
`patents’ disclosure of how the claimed arrangement improved upon prior art
`
`systems. Id. Similarly, in McRO, the attorney argument asserting that the claims
`
`preempted too much failed because:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`1. “Defendants provided no evidence that the process previously used by
`
`animators is the same as the process required by the claims.” McRO, 2016
`
`WL 4896481, at *8.
`
`2. “Defendants’ attorney’s argument that any rules-based lip-synchronization
`
`process must use the claimed type of rules has appeal, but no record
`
`evidence supports this conclusion.” Id. at *9.
`
`Accordingly, particularly when the specification provides an express disclosure of
`
`how the claimed invention differs from the conventional method or means of
`
`achieving the result, Petitioners must provide evidence that the claims preempt too
`
`much. Bald attorney argument is not sufficient.
`
`
`
`As set forth below, TT has provided substantial evidence that there are many
`
`ways to practice the alleged abstract idea that are not covered by the claimed
`
`invention. Infra at III.E. There is no concern of the ’374 claims preempting too
`
`much.
`
`E. Claims are eligible under Alice prong II if there is a “non-
`conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
`conventional pieces”
`In Bascom, the Court found that, unlike Enfish, the case presented a “close
`
`call[] about how to characterize what the claims are directed to.” Bascom, 827 F.3d
`
`at 1349 (alteration in original) (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339). Accordingly, the
`
`Court deferred its “consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`for step two.” Id. Ultimately, the Court confirmed the claims under prong II
`
`because BASCOM had alleged an inventive concept “in the ordered combination
`
`of claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a
`
`particular, practical application of that abstract idea.” Id. at 1352 (emphasis
`
`added). Importantly, “the limitations of [BASCOM’s] claims . . . , taken
`
`individually, recite generic computer, network and Internet components, none of
`
`which is inventive by itself.” Id. at 1349. Indeed, BASCOM did not assert that it
`
`invented any of those individual components or the basic concept of filtering. Id.
`
`But the Court still found an inventive concept in the nonconventional and
`
`nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Id. at 1350.
`
` TT’S CLAIMS ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE UNDER BOTH PRONGS III.
`
`
`OF THE ALICE TEST
`As the recent case law further confirms, the ’374 patent claims are patent
`
`eligible because they claim the construction of a specific GUI that provides an
`
`improvement over the construction of prior GUI tools, as stated in the
`
`specification. The claimed invention is narrowly drawn to a specific
`
`implementation of a GUI, and while the claimed GUI may be used for order entry
`
`by a user to send electronic order messages to an electronic exchange, it does not
`
`tie up most, much less all, ways of performing that task. 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
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`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 similar to those in the ’132, ’304,
`
`and ’411 patents, the ’374 claims provide additional elements that further define
`
`the invention.
`
`A. The nature of the claimed invention is confirmed by the
`specification
`
`The electronic trading industry, both prior to the claimed invention and for a
`
`period thereafter, maintained a widely accepted conventional wisdom regarding the
`
`design of a GUI tool for electronic order entry. Ex.2169, ¶¶30-37, 43-65; see also
`
`Ex.2206-7. Specifically, prior art GUIs provided the ability to enter and send order
`
`messages to an electronic exchange using order entry tickets or dynamic order
`
`entry screens. Id. Figure 2 of the patent (with annotations below) exemplifies
`
`another conventional GUI tool where users entered and sent orders by directly
`
`interfacing with displayed prices (e.g., using a mouse). Id. These conventional GUI
`
`tools for rapid order entry were constructed with designated locations for
`
`displaying the best bid/ask prices. Id. ¶¶48-55.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent 7,904,374
`
`
`
`
`The structure, makeup, 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.2169, ¶48. 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, ea