UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054
`Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIC J. GOULD BEAR
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054
`Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIC J. GOULD BEAR
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3
`I.
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 3
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 4
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ......................................................................... 10
`V.
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION ..................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Inventions Necessarily Rely on Existing Technologies ......................................... 11
`The Science of Human-Computer Interaction ...................................................... 12
`The TT Patent is Concerned with Solving a Technical GUI Problem. ................. 16
`Computer-Readable Medium Claims are Not Directed at Propagated Signals. .. 27
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1: BEAR CV
`EXHIBIT 2: TUFTE VISUAL AND STATISTICAL THINKING
`EXHIBIT 3: MACKENZIE AND BUXTON ON FITTS’ LAW
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`(“TT” or “Patent Owner”), in this action. My credentials are described in my CV,
`
`which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. I offer this report on the technology at issue
`
`in U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2 (the “’768 Patent”) in response to the Covered
`
`Business Patent Review matter CBM2016-00054 instituted and filed by IBG LLC,
`
`Interactive Brokers LLC, (“IB”) TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation
`
`Securities, Inc. (“TS”, “TradeStation”) (collectively “Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by TT’s counsel to explain whether and how
`
`graphical user interface design and development is technology and whether the
`
`inventions claimed in the ’768 Patent are technical solutions to technical problems.
`
`Further, I have been asked to assess whether the claims read on all ways of
`
`displaying and updating market information and placing a trade order. I am being
`
`compensated at the rate of $480 per hour. My compensation is not related to the
`
`outcome of this case.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`3.
`
`As a result of performing the analysis described herein and measured
`
`against the standards outlined below in Section IV, I have determined that, in my
`
`opinion, the ’768 Patent claims a new and improved graphical user interface.
`
`Herein, I explain how graphical user interfaces are technologies for human
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`interaction designed and purpose-built to address problems of speed, accuracy,
`
`efficiency and usability – all technical problems. Since graphical user interfaces
`
`are inherently technology, the ’768 Patent claims are necessarily directed to
`
`technology; solving technical problems with technical solutions. The claims are
`
`not directed to a business method or practice. And since they explicitly improve
`
`upon known computer technologies, they are neither merely implemented using
`
`known computer technology nor directed to routine and conventional computing
`
`components or steps. My opinion is supported by the evidence in the patent
`
`specification, figures and claims.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am the first named inventor on at least 80 United States patent
`
`applications that list me as an inventor. These are cataloged in my CV. To date, at
`
`least 70 of those applications have issued as U.S. patents. I am also the first named
`
`inventor on a number of international patents and patent applications.1
`
`5.
`
`Inventions of mine for which patents have been issued include virtual
`
`force-feedback user
`
`interfaces, methods of navigating poly-hierarchical
`
`information, management of playlists that include both owned and un-owned
`
`1 Some of my patents and applications identify me as “Gould” while others identify
`me as “Bear” because I legally changed my name from Eric Justin Gould to Eric
`Justin Gould Bear after adopting my first child from China in 1999.
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`songs, real-time communications architectures, auxiliary visual displays for
`
`personal computers, auxiliary processing by sleeping computing devices, methods
`
`for reducing parallax in computer camera systems, methods for using telephony
`
`controls on personal computers, methods for navigating content using media
`
`transport controls, and methods for unifying audio control on personal computers.
`
`More recent applications claim inventions relating to symbolic and schematic
`
`displays of protocol-specific information, user interfaces for visualizing data
`
`backup and recovery, and handheld multi-channel interactive environments.
`
`6.
`
`By the time I was 12, I was programming computers in BASIC using
`
`Tandy TRS-80 and Apple personal computers. In 1984, I formed Element Systems
`
`to provide a consulting framework for my interface design and code production
`
`skills. From 1984 to 1993, I designed and engineered software for clients in
`
`utilizing a variety of coding languages, including BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, 68000
`
`Assembly Language and HyperCard / SuperCard. Clients included Aetna Life
`
`Insurance, Kaleida Labs (an Apple/IBM joint venture) and SoftWriters, for whom I
`
`wrote code to perform network administration of remote computer systems in
`
`1991. Other clients are listed in my CV.
`
`7.
`
`In 1986, two years after Apple released the Macintosh computer, I
`
`became an Apple Certified Developer.
`
`8.
`
`In 1988 and 1989, I designed and developed a significant portion of
`
`the code for Aetna Life Insurance's first graphical user
`
`interface. The
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`transformation of Aetna's financial information system from a command line
`
`terminal to a modern point and click Macintosh application (e.g. with mouse, radio
`
`buttons, check boxes and clickable text entry fields) marked my first experience
`
`leading groups of engineers in the design of a multi-million dollar user experience
`
`(“UX”) program.
`
`9.
`
`In 1991, I received a Bachelor of Arts from Wesleyan University in
`
`Cognitive Science, an interdisciplinary degree that combined the studies of
`
`Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics and Computer Science. Example coursework
`
`included biological neurophysiology, artificial intelligence programming in LISP
`
`and research in human perception of audio/visual phenomena as presented and
`
`measured by computing machines. The Psychology Department at Wesleyan was
`
`also a client, for whom I designed and engineered test tools in Lightspeed Pascal
`
`and SuperCard for millisecond timing of visual search tasks in perception
`
`experiments.
`
`10.
`
`In the summer of 1992, I interned at Apple, Inc. (then Apple
`
`Computer, Inc.) in the Advanced Technology Group’s Human Interface Group
`
`where I worked on designing and programming user interfaces for an auditory-only
`
`display device. I joined ACM and SigCHI (Special interest group on Computer
`
`Human Interaction) at that time and am now a lifetime member. I am also a
`
`lifetime member of CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility),
`
`which I joined in 1992.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`In 1993, I received a Masters of Professional Studies in Interactive
`
`11.
`
`Telecommunications from New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts. On
`
`full scholarship, I designed and engineered various hardware, software and
`
`interactive video experiences. New York University (with Bell Atlantic) was one
`
`of my clients in 1992, for which I developed software to decode telephone touch-
`
`tones. This code enabled Manhattan Cable TV viewers to control 3D graphical
`
`environments on broadcast television in real-time using their telephone handsets.
`
`12. From 1994 to 1999, I held faculty positions at San Francisco State
`
`University (Multimedia Studies Program) and The University of Texas at Austin
`
`(Department of Radio-TV-Film). I taught graduate and undergraduate courses in
`
`multimedia design as well as advanced interaction and interface design, including
`
`mentoring students in the development of experimental hardware/software UX.
`
`During this same period, I wrote the user interface design column for InterActivity
`
`Magazine. A list of these articles and other publications is included in my CV.
`
`13.
`
`I have also presented papers and given talks regularly on topics
`
`relating to inventorship, UX design and interactive media. I have made
`
`presentations at conferences of ACM SigCHI, SXSW, the International Consumer
`
`Electronics Show (CES), Digital Hollywood and the TV of Tomorrow Show. I
`
`have also served as an independent judge of conference paper submissions and
`
`regularly serve on the SXSW Advisory Board. A list of my presentations and talks
`
`is provided in my CV.
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`I founded MONKEYmedia in San Francisco in 1994 to provide the
`
`14.
`
`desktop computing, new media and consumer electronics industries a design and
`
`technology resource focused specifically on human-computer interaction. Clients
`
`included Interval Research Corporation, Texas Instruments, Sega of America,
`
`Sprint, Viacom, Microsoft / WebTV. MONKEYmedia earned industry recognition
`
`for my work, including a CLIO, an Award of Excellence from Communication
`
`Arts, Best Use of Audio at South by Southwest (SXSW) and other awards.
`
`15. From 2001 through 2005, I held executive leadership positions at
`
`Microsoft Corporation and Yahoo! Inc. At each company, I directed teams of
`
`interaction designers, visual designers, user researchers, ethnographers and
`
`prototype engineers responsible for crafting the UX of various product lines. These
`
`programs included Windows Tablet PC Edition, the Windows Hardware
`
`Innovation Group, Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Photos, Yahoo!
`
`Personals, Yahoo!/SBC (now AT&T) set-top experience and Yahoo! Mobile
`
`applications. Descriptions of my work for those corporations are detailed in my
`
`CV.
`
`16. Beginning in 2005, I have provided executive consulting services in
`
`corporate user experience strategy and design innovation through Chief Experience
`
`Officer, Inc. In this capacity, I have lead the UX strategy and design of computer
`
`mice, universal remote controls, mobile phones, stock trading applications, legal
`
`research tools, home automation systems and medical devices for companies
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`including Logitech, Tektronix, Motorola, Charles Schwab, Thomson Reuters and
`
`others mentioned in my CV. My work on Logitech’s premium mice and remote
`
`controls contributed to winning a number of industry awards, including multiple
`
`2007 CES Technology & Innovation Awards, a 2008 CES Best of Innovations
`
`Award, a 2009 CES Best of Innovations Category Winner Award, and a 2010 CES
`
`Innovations Award.
`
`17. Of particular relevance to this matter is my work on Charles Schwab’s
`
`active stock trading application “Street Smart Edge.” On the project, I led a team
`
`of user interface and interaction designers in studying trader habits and usability
`
`challenges and writing functional and technical specifications for Charles
`
`Schwab’s engineering team to implement that addressed those usability challenges.
`
`18.
`
`In 2012, I designed and wrote an iPad application entitled Walk-in
`
`Theater in collaboration with videographer Rachel Strickland and musician Jim
`
`McKee. Walk-in Theater is an experiment with peripatetic perspective, engaging
`
`participants' proprioceptors and spatial memory to orient them as they navigate
`
`among multiple video streams in a 3D sound field.
`
`19.
`
`In 2013, I joined Austin’s Capital Factory start-up incubator as a
`
`partner and angel investor, where I serve as an advisor to executives in intellectual
`
`property strategy and the design and development of new hardware, software and
`
`services. I am currently employed by CURB, Inc. – an early-stage startup that
`
`manufactures energy monitoring and control systems – as its Chief Experience
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Officer.
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`
`20. My experience designing and evaluating user interfaces over the last
`
`25+ years, including the optimization of human performance through the use of
`
`computing technology and automated feedback of various forms and modalities, as
`
`well as my background hiring and managing teams of user experience
`
`professionals, position me as an expert in the design and development of graphical
`
`user interfaces.
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`21.
`
`In performing my analysis, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`’768 Patent, the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the related eSpeed proceedings (595
`
`F.3d 1340 (2010) issued on 4/21/2010), the Federal Circuit’s §112 opinion issued
`
`on 11/27/2013 in the related 728 F.3d 1309 (2013) proceedings, Judge Coleman’s
`
`opinion in the related CQG proceedings (05-cv-4811) holding that the related ’132
`
`and ’304 Patents are patent eligible, portions of declarations by Kendyl A. Román
`
`in support of the petition for CBM review of the ’768 Patent, the petition for CBM
`
`review, TT’s preliminary response to the petition, and the PTAB’s decision to
`
`institute the corresponding CBM review.
`
`22. For consistency and ease of review, all of my column and line
`
`citations to the patent specification are in “(column:line)” format.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`V.
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`
`A. Inventions Necessarily Improve Existing Technologies
`
`23. No new technology can exist in a vacuum wholly disconnected from
`
`the past. Whether built using metal, wood, plastic or pixels on a computer screen,
`
`all innovations must – to some extent – be made from a combination of known
`
`components. Pixels are building block materials used to construct software
`
`interfaces just like plastic is a building block material used to construct hardware
`
`controls. Whether any given combination is obvious and unanticipated is a
`
`reasonable question to be raised, but it is my understanding that the present CBM
`
`review is not concerned with either anticipation or obviousness issues. I have not
`
`studied the prior art at length and do not have an opinion at this time with regards
`
`to §102 and §103 validity.
`
`24. There are myriad user
`
`interface visualization and
`
`interaction
`
`techniques known to be employable when creating new user experiences. The
`
`existence of these techniques, aka technologies, is akin to the existence of raw
`
`physical building materials. Just like building a house, certain technologies lend
`
`themselves to certain types of use. Similarly, certain technologies draw designers
`
`of software systems into using them in particular combinations. Simply knowing
`
`that various technologies exist that can be used for a variety of purposes is not
`
`enough to motivate, inspire or enable someone to combine such techniques in new
`
`ways. Nonetheless, I believe it important to establish that human-computer
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`perception and/or human-computer interaction innovations should not be treated
`
`differently from innovations based on physical technologies not built using
`
`software toolkits.
`
`B. The Science of Human-Computer Interaction
`
`25. Understanding the purported inventiveness of TT Patent depends upon
`
`understanding the field of the invention – which is the science of human-computer
`
`interaction (“HCI”), also known as user experience (“UX”) design – as applied in
`
`the context of stock trading with a mission critical tool.
`
`26. The discipline of user experience grew out of ergonomics and what
`
`was once called man-machine interface (“MMI”). It is generally concerned with
`
`how to make machines reliably responsive to human expression while being easy
`
`to use and unobtrusive. The user interface (“UI”) or graphical user interface
`
`(“GUI”) is the boundary or bridge between a person and a machine. It includes the
`
`physical hardware and logical software, capturing concrete measurable human
`
`input and outputting processed information for human perception. To be clear, the
`
`invention neither claims nor improves the underlying process of trading, but rather
`
`offers a better GUI for human interaction within the existing trading model. In
`
`other words, trading, itself, is not at issue; but specific display and interaction
`
`techniques for trading with speed, accuracy and a minimum of error are at issue.
`
`27. Various other terms have been used over the past decades of the
`
`development of the science as it has matured. Technical aspects of the science
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`include human
`
`factors engineering
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`(“HFE”), ergonomics, ergonometrics,
`
`biomechanics, industrial design, cognitive engineering, user research, design
`
`research, usability engineering, user-centered design (“UCD”),
`
`interaction
`
`engineering, interaction design (“IxD”), information architecture (“IA”), and
`
`product design.
`
`28. Don Norman is generally recognized as a “founding father” of the
`
`modern UX discipline. He is a former VP and User Experience Architect at Apple
`
`Inc. and a professor of Cognitive Science and Psychology at UCSD. He taught
`
`practitioners in the industry many core concepts. Of note and particular relevance
`
`to the ’768 Patent are: (1) affordances, which define what is possible for people to
`
`do at any given time; and (2) feedback, which let people know what can be done,
`
`what they are doing or what they just did. How specific affordances and feedback
`
`are designed and engineered depends heavily on the circumstances of use, and
`
`there is an international community of user experience professionals that have been
`
`meeting and settings standards for over 30 years. The Association of Computing
`
`Machines’ special interest group on computer human interaction (SigCHI), has
`
`been hosting the premier international conference on human factors in computing
`
`systems since 1982. And the International Standards Organization (ISO) has
`
`adopted standards in “ergonomic principles in the design of work systems” that
`
`date back to 1981 (ISO 6485:1981) and standards in “human-centered design
`
`processes for interactive systems” (ISO 13407:1999E) dating to the time of
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`invention of the TT Patent. These standards were developed because the design of
`
`a GUI is analogous to the crafting of a physical workspace or cockpit – and
`
`incorporates many of the same human factors engineering variables, such as
`
`reachability, readability, glance-ability, performance, speed, and risk of error.
`
`These standards may be used to create new and innovative GUIs that are broadly
`
`used and adapted.
`
`29. By the time of invention of the ’768 Patent, many corporations had
`
`established a track record of investing heavily into user experience research and
`
`design to craft and improve the engineering of their own products and the
`
`industry’s technical competency, generally. A few entities recognized for their
`
`technical contributions to the field in the late 1990s include Xerox PARC, Apple,
`
`IBM, Microsoft, Philips, Sony, AT&T, HP, SAP, SunSoft, Intel, Disney and the
`
`National Science Foundation. By the time of invention of the ’768 Patent, there
`
`were many leading universities with advanced degrees in one or more UX
`
`disciplines. Notable programs turning out graduates who made a significant
`
`inventive impact on the field by the late 1990s included those at Stanford, M.I.T.,
`
`Carnegie Mellon, N.Y.U., University of Maryland, University of Toronto,
`
`University of Michigan, UCSD, SFSU, Georgia Tech, George Washington
`
`University, Bowling Green, Delft University and the Royal College of Art.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that Petitioner’s expert Kendyl A. Román has
`
`opined that a college education is not needed to design user interfaces. This may
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`be true of the design of casual user interfaces, such as simplistic websites, but not
`
`the design of mission critical applications. Commodities trading is high stakes and
`
`requires a trained and nuanced understanding of human factors variables to
`
`interpret the complexity of usability issues and appreciate the value of technical
`
`solutions to specific perception and interaction behavior challenges. This is
`
`especially true of the users of the claimed invention, who are professional
`
`derivatives traders that conduct such trading for their profession. Many well-
`
`funded entities – including software providers, stock exchanges, brokers, futures
`
`commission merchants (FCMs) and trading groups – knew the value of technically
`
`sophisticated user interface experts and invested heavily in GUI technology
`
`development as part of their efforts to innovate in the space.
`
`31. The user experience success metrics used today are the same as they
`
`were at the time of invention of the ’768 Patent. Great user experiences occur to
`
`end-users as simple and easy to use, quick and efficient, seamless and effortless.
`
`Getting the user experience right is also essential for mission critical tasks, where
`
`people’s lives or life savings are at stake. A suboptimal GUI can contribute to
`
`mistakes that cause irreversible damage (e.g. losses of life, losses of wealth,
`
`destruction of property).
`
`32. But to accomplish excellent results depends on the science of user
`
`experience design. There are three general domains of design involved in crafting
`
`user experiences: information design, interaction design, and interface design.
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`Information design is about the specific techniques for organizing content.
`
`Interaction design is about what people functionally do with their bodies and their
`
`hands, such as hovering over a cell and clicking a mouse button. And interface
`
`design proper is about the sensory aspects of the experience. How are things
`
`technically changing on screen? How do people know what they can do? How do
`
`they know what they are doing and what they just did?
`
`33. Due to the complexities and nuances technical design of GUIs,
`
`following a scientific method is necessary to invent successful GUIs that ultimately
`
`appear to end users as magically intuitive and, thus, at risk of feeling obvious in
`
`hindsight. This process normally involves: (a) listening to users and understanding
`
`their technical needs, (b) inventing and designing novel technical solutions, (c)
`
`validating the efficacy of those novel technical solutions through usability testing,
`
`(d)
`
`iteratively refining
`
`those novel
`
`technical solutions, and (e) clearly
`
`communicating to engineers the specific technical details of the resultant visual
`
`interfaces and human-computer interaction techniques so they can be accurately
`
`constructed to operate as designed. Using such well-weathered objective methods
`
`is what makes interactions between people and machines predictable, measureable
`
`and reproducible.
`
`C. The TT Patent is Concerned with Solving a Technical GUI Problem.
`
`34.
`
`I am aware that petitioners argue that the claims solve a business
`
`problem, not a technical problem. Even if petitioners were correct to frame the
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`problem of a trader completing an order at a correct price as a “business problem,”
`
`the claimed invention solves technical problems of speed, precision, and usability
`
`with prior GUI tools. These are classic technical problems. Solving an additional
`
`business problem, even if true, does not negate the technological problems solved
`
`by the claimed invention. Trading is the field of application for the claimed GUI
`
`tool and the asserted business problem of obtaining a trade order at an intended
`
`price is merely an application of the claimed technology. All innovative tools that
`
`solve technical problems also solve problems in their field of use. For example, a
`
`flight instrument embodied in a GUI can address both a technical problem
`
`(usability) and a problem in its field (flight safety). The problems of speed,
`
`accuracy, and usability and their solution are necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology and the operation of prior art GUIs, not in a business practice.
`
`35. The first sentence of the ’768 Patent’s abstract clearly defines the
`
`motivation for the invention as technical – “A method and system for reducing the
`
`time it takes for a trader to place a trade when electronically trading on an
`
`exchange, thus increasing the likelihood that the trader will have orders filled at
`
`desirable prices and quantities.” Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added). In other
`
`words, the invention is being accurately framed as addressing speed, accuracy and
`
`technical usability challenges. Reducing task time is a technical challenge well
`
`established in the field of user interface and interaction design. It is also a well-
`
`established technical problem in the field of physical devices and man machine
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`interfaces. Also, increasing task accuracy is a technical challenge well established
`
`in the field of user interface and interaction design – in both hardware and software
`
`realms. As in the physical world, motivations to solve such technical challenges
`
`generally do not yield obvious solutions, and that even the most intellectually
`
`logical solutions do not necessarily correlate with the most intuitive or efficacious
`
`solutions. For that reason, the science of user experience depends heavily on
`
`usability research and real-world validation testing to ascertain technical efficacy
`
`and to direct designers back to the drawing board to craft better performing and
`
`frequently novel and non-obvious solutions.
`
`36. The subsequent sentences of the TT Patent’s abstract clearly define
`
`the invention itself as technical – the “display and trading method of the present
`
`invention ensure fast and accurate execution of trades by displaying market depth
`
`on a vertical or horizontal plane, which fluctuates logically up or down, left or
`
`right across the plane as the market prices fluctuates. This allows the trader to
`
`trade quickly and efficiently.” Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added). The design of
`
`dynamic visual displays and the human-computer interactions dictated by the
`
`specific technical aspects of said visual displays is a well-established science with
`
`a rich history, requiring a nuanced appreciation of human performance variables
`
`and
`
`technical design characteristics
`
`to afford
`
`implementation excellence.
`
`Furthermore, such nuance often depends on the field of application, especially
`
`when it comes to mission critical activities. It is my understanding that there is
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`considerable evidence that the claimed combination was successful in the
`
`marketplace, copied by others, and received praise from many participants in the
`
`industry. This is evidence of careful, nuanced, technical design that created an
`
`improvement over prior GUIs.
`
`37.
`
`It is my understanding that the Petitioners argue that employment of
`
`known structures in any makeup cannot create new functionality. This position is
`
`nonsensical in the context of software applications. Changing the makeup of
`
`known GUI elements (structures) on a computer screen often dictates a dramatic
`
`change in the functionality of the GUI. And because the makeup of any set of user
`
`interface structures – whether involving numerical display regions, lists, cells,
`
`graphical buttons, or what have you – establishes the specific meaning and
`
`technical capabilities of that user interface, this cannot, by definition, avoid being
`
`deemed technology.
`
`38. For the avoidance of doubt about the technical nature of visual design,
`
`itself, it is worth calling attention to the canonical works of visualization expert,
`
`Edward Tufte. Tufte provides ample evidence that (1) the crafting of effective
`
`visual displays is deeply technical, that (2) getting such displays “right” can be a
`
`matter of life and death, and that (3) getting it “right” in mission critical contexts
`
`has proven time and again to be non-obvious. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is an
`
`excerpt from Tufte’s 1997 book, “Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities,
`
`Evidence and Narrative,” in which these points are made clear through varying
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`representations of the same data to arrive at dramatically differing outcomes. These
`
`teachings illustrate visual analyses of the Cholera Epidemic in London in 1854 and
`
`the flawed decision to launch the Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986. Visual design
`
`(aka “optical engineering”) is a technical craft regularly requiring experimentation
`
`and innovation to solve technical problems of human perception and graphical
`
`reasoning in relation to numerical and statistical data, as specifically motivated by
`
`the inventors of the ’768 Patent.
`
`39. As a result of reading the patent as a whole, it is clear that the ’768
`
`Patent is a user interface technology patent that improves the science of user
`
`experience well beyond the domain of commodity trading. The ’768 Patent does
`
`not claim general trading concepts independent of the specific technical limitations
`
`taught in the specification and language in the claims. Instead, the claimed steps
`
`are directed to the construction of a specific GUI and how a user can interact with
`
`it.
`
`40. The claimed GUI thus improves the functioning of a computer
`
`because it provides new structure, makeup, and functionality that does not exist
`
`absent the claimed specialized GUI. By “structure,” I mean the individual GUI
`
`components of the invention, whether interactive elements or pure data display
`
`elements. By “makeup,” I mean the specific ordering and layout configuration of
`
`the various GUI structures on screen. By “functionality,” I mean the ways in
`
`which the structures and the makeup of the structures: (i) restrict and/or enable data
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 82
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2168
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
