`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.,
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., and
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Mandatory Notices ......................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real parties-in-interest .......................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel................................................................... 2 
`Grounds For Standing ..................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Petitioners’ certification ........................................................................ 3 
`B. 
`The ’768 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent ........................ 3 
`1. 
`The ’768 patent claims a covered business method ................... 4 
`2. 
`The ’768 patent is not for a “technological invention” .............. 5 
`3. 
`AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review ................. 9 
`Identification of the Challenge ..................................................................... 11 
`A.  Grounds of Unpatentability ................................................................. 11 
`B. 
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 11 
`IV.  The ʼ768 Patent ............................................................................................. 13 
`A. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) .................................... 13 
`B. 
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 14 
`V.  Ground 1 – Claims 1-23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............... 15 
`A. 
`Current state of § 101 jurisprudence ................................................... 16 
`B. 
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of placing an order
`based on observed (plotted) market information, as well as
`updating market information (Alice Step 1) ........................................ 17 
`Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite only insignificant
`post-solution activity and data gathering (Alice Step 2) ..................... 20 
`The claims are not rooted in computer technology ............................. 29 
`D. 
`TT v. CQG is not controlling precedent .............................................. 30 
`E. 
`Claim 23 is not directed to a statutory class of subject matter. ........... 31 
`F. 
`VI.  Ground 2 – TSE and Belden render claims 1-13, 15, 16, 18, and 21-23
`obvious. ......................................................................................................... 31 
`A.  Overview of TSE ................................................................................. 32 
`
`III. 
`
`C. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`7. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`Overview of Belden ............................................................................ 34 
`Rationale for combining TSE and Belden .......................................... 36 
`TSE and Belden render independent claims 1 and 23 obvious. .......... 37 
`1. 
`TSE teaches the Preambles of claims 1 and 23. ...................... 37 
`TSE teaches the “receiving data . . .” limitation. .................... 39 
`2. 
`TSE teaches the “dynamically displaying . . .” limitations. ..... 40 
`3. 
`4. 
`The combination of TSE and Belden teaches the
`“displaying an order entry region . . .” limitation. .................. 41 
`TSE teaches the first and second “fixed location”
`limitations. ................................................................................ 46 
`TSE teaches the “updating the display . . .” limitations. ......... 48 
`The combination of TSE and Belden teaches “setting a
`plurality of parameters for a trade order . . . and sending
`the trade order . . .” limitation. ................................................ 50 
`Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over TSE and Belden. ............................. 53 
`E. 
`Claim 4 is obvious over TSE and Belden. .......................................... 54 
`F. 
`Claim 5 is obvious over TSE and Belden. .......................................... 55 
`G. 
`Claim 6 is obvious over TSE and Belden. .......................................... 55 
`H. 
`Claim 7 is obvious over TSE and Belden. .......................................... 56 
`I. 
`Claims 8 and 9 are obvious over TSE and Belden. ............................. 57 
`J. 
`Claim 10 is obvious over TSE and Belden. ........................................ 58 
`K. 
`Claim 11 is obvious over TSE and Belden. ........................................ 58 
`L. 
`M.  Claim 12 is obvious over TSE and Belden. ........................................ 60 
`N. 
`Claims 13 and 16 are obvious over TSE and Belden. ......................... 60 
`O. 
`Claims 15 and 18 are obvious over TSE and Belden. ......................... 63 
`P. 
`Claims 21 and 22 are obvious over TSE and Belden. ......................... 66 
`VII.  Ground 3 – TSE, Belden, and Cooper render claims 14, 17, 19 and 20
`obvious. ......................................................................................................... 67 
`A. 
`Claims 14 and 17 are obvious over TSE, Belden, and Cooper. .......... 67 
`B. 
`Claims 19 and 20 are obvious over TSE, Belden, and Cooper. .......... 70 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`VIII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 71 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases 
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................. passim
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 17
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 9, 24, 30
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) .......................................................................................... 19
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 19
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc.,
` 291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 12
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... passim
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com LP,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 29, 30
`Ex Parte Mewherter
` 107 USPQ2d 1857 (B.P.A.I. 2013) ...................................................................... 15
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005) ................................................................................................ 9
`In re Nuijten,
`550 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 15, 31
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch.,
`CBM2013-00049 (Paper 53, Mar. 2, 2015) .......................................................... 20
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 20, 24
`Mayo Collab.Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
` 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .............................................................................. 16, 19, 25
`Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs.,
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`132 S. Ct. 740 (2012) ............................................................................................ 10
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 14
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG,
`No. 05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) ............................................................. 30
`Ultramercial v. Hulu,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... passim
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 4, 10
`Xianli Zhang v. United States,
`640 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................... 1, 15, 19
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`AIA § 18(d)(2) .......................................................................................................... 11
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011) ...................................................................... 10
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (Sept. 8, 2011) .................................................................. 9, 10
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 6
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................. 4
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.032 ................................................................................................ 3, 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ........................................................................................... 5, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`Exh No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2 to Kemp, II et al. (“ʼ768 patent”)
`1002
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/585,906, which became the
`’768 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’768 Patent File His-
`tory”)
`Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury De-
`mand Against IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC, Trading Tech-
`nologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC,
`Case No. 1:05-cv-00721 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 21, 2011)
`Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury De-
`mand Against TradeStation Securities, Inc., and TradeStation Group,
`Inc., Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. TradeStation Securi-
`ties, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00884 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 15, 2011)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Redacted Second Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas,
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., Case No.
`1:05-CV-04811 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2013) (“Thomas Report”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`1010
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`1011
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`1012 WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. (“Belden”)
`1013
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`1014
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`1015
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 to Hartman et al. (“Hartman”)
`1016
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guidelines,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`vii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1025
`1026
`
`Exh No. Description
`1017
`Certified Translation of “System for Buying and Selling Futures and
`Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “System for Buying and Selling Futures
`and Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE
`Certificate”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`David M. Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” 1993 (“Weiss”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design,”
`First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Ef-
`fective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998 (“Shnei-
`derman”)
`1024 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, pages 150 (“Mi-
`crosoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 17 (“’135 POPR”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 19 (“’135 Ins. Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 29 (“’135 Reh’g Dec.”)
`
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`viii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1035
`
`Exh No. Description
`1034
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 32 (“’135 POR”)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill.
`Feb. 24, 2015) (“TT v. CQG Slip. Op.”)
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc., 1985
`(“Inside Macintosh”)
`Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed,
`Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00182, Paper 19
`(’182 Ins. Dec.)
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00181, Paper 26
`(’181 Ins. Dec.)
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00182, Paper 15
`(’182 POPR)
`1041 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1998.
`1042
`Super Mario Brothers image (1985)
`1043 Metal Warrior V1.6 source code (1999)
`1044
`U.S. Patent No. 6,205,260 to Crinon et al. (“Crinon”)
`
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc.,
`
`and TradeStation Securities, Inc., petition for Covered Business Method (“CBM”)
`
`Review of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 (Ex. 1001, “’768 patent”)
`
`owned by Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”). This Petition demon-
`
`strates that claims 1-23 of the ’768 patent are more likely than not unpatentable.
`
`First, claims 1-23 are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
`
`each merely recites the abstract idea of placing an order based on observed
`
`(plotted) market information and updating market information. The claims repre-
`
`sent nothing more than the well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of
`
`displaying data on a computer, displaying locations on a computer to accept an or-
`
`der for a commodity, and sending the order to an exchange.
`
`Second, claims 1-23 also are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’768 pa-
`
`tent admits that its claimed method of using graphical user interface (“GUI”) soft-
`
`ware can be implemented on any existing computer that can perform the claimed
`
`functions, which include plotting bids and asks along a price axis and providing
`
`“single action” entry of trade orders. And, these functions were well known before
`
`the earliest possible priority date of the ’768 patent. Prior art, such as TSE, de-
`
`scribes interfaces that display market information as claimed in the ’768 patent. In-
`
`deed, TT conceded that single-action order entry was prior art. (’135 POPR at 7
`
`(Ex. 1031).) The Belden reference confirms TT’s concession.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`This Petition and its supporting evidence demonstrate that the claims of the
`
`’768 patent merely utilize well-known and simple graphical user interface tech-
`
`niques in a financial trading product. Petitioners therefore request that trial be insti-
`
`tuted on all Grounds.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`A. Real parties-in-interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC,
`
`TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technolo-
`
`gies, Inc., and IBFX, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’768 patent is currently involved in the following proceeding that may
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: TT v. BGC Partners, Inc., et
`
`al., 1:10-cv-715 (N.D. Ill.) (1:10-cv-716, 1:10-cv-718, 1:10-cv-720, 1:10-cv-721,
`
`1:10-cv-929, 1:10-cv-931, 1:10-cv-885, 1:10-cv-883, 1:10-cv-884, and 1:10-cv-
`
`882 consolidated therein); and 1:05-cv-5164 (now CAFC No. 15-1768). The fol-
`
`lowing CBM review proceedings may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding: CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182; CBM2016-
`
`00009; CBM2016-00031; and CBM2016-00051.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Petitioners appoint Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No. 36,013) as its lead counsel,
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`and Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) and Richard M. Bemben (Reg. No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`68,658) as its back-up counsel, all at: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100
`
`New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone no. (202) 371-2600,
`
`facsimile (202) 371-2540, and John C. Phillips (Reg. No. 35,322) as back-up
`
`counsel. Petitioners consent to service by email at: rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com,
`
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com, rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com, PTAB@skgf.com, and
`
`CBM41919-0013CP1@fr.com.
`
`II. Grounds For Standing
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners’ certification
`
`Petitioners certify that they meet the eligibility requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.302 because they were sued for infringement of the ’768 patent: TT v. IBG
`
`LLC, 1:10-cv-721 (N.D. Ill.); TT v. Tradestation Securities, Inc., 1:10-cv-884
`
`(N.D. Ill.). (See Exhibits 1003 and 1004.) Petitioners also certify that they are not
`
`estopped or barred from filing this Petition—they have not been a party or a privy
`
`to a party in any post-grant proceeding of the ’768 patent, nor filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’768 patent.
`
`B.
`
`The ’768 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`The ’768 patent is a CBM patent because it claims a method for placing a
`
`trade for a commodity on an electronic exchange, and is not for a technological in-
`
`vention. And contrary to TT’s arguments made in related CBM proceedings, GUIs
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`are not exempt from CBM review. (See ’182 Ins. Dec. (Ex. 1038) at 13 (“We are
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the legislative history of the AIA
`
`establishes that novel user interfaces for commodities, as a category, were intended
`
`to be exempt from covered business patent review.”)
`
`1. The ’768 patent claims a covered business method
`
`A patent that claims a method for performing data processing in the practice,
`
`administration or management of a financial product or service is a CBM patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). In promulgating the final rules for CBM review, the Office
`
`explained that that “financial product or service” should be “interpreted broadly,”
`
`encompassing patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to
`
`a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Transitional Program
`
`for CBM Patents—Definitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`Federal Circuit upheld the Office’s interpretation in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v.
`
`SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1323-26 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The ’768 patent meets this definition. Claim 1, e.g., recites a “method of
`
`placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange” (’768 patent,
`
`11:46-47), and recites steps of displaying market information, including indicators
`
`of asks and bids in the market, and recites steps of setting trade parameters and
`
`sending a trade order to an electronic exchange (id. at claim 1). Displaying market
`
`information and sending a trade order to an electronic exchange are activities that
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`are financial in nature. Claim 23 has similar recitations. (Id. at claim 23.) And
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`while a patent need only one claim directed to a CBM to be eligible for CBM re-
`
`view, all the claims qualify. (See, e.g., id. at claims 4-6 (order entry regions),
`
`claims 7-9 (deleting orders), claim 10 (display of financial data associated with a
`
`last trade), and claim 12 (defining parameters for an order).)
`
`2. The ’768 patent is not for a “technological invention”
`
`The ’768 patent fails both prongs of the technological invention test of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The claims as a whole do not recite a technical feature that is
`
`novel and unobvious over the prior art, nor do they solve a technical problem using
`
`a technical solution. Instead, they attempt to solve a business problem by applying
`
`known GUI and display techniques on existing computer systems.
`
`a)
`
`The ’768 patent does not recite a technological feature that
`is novel and unobvious
`
`The claims of the ’768 patent do not recite a technical feature that is novel or
`
`unobvious over the prior art. In general, the claims recite trading software that is
`
`implemented on a conventional computer. Indeed, the patent admits “that the sys-
`
`tem of the present invention can be implemented on any existing . . . terminal or
`
`device with the processing capability to perform the functions described herein.”
`
`(’768 patent, 4:4-7.) Those functions are well-understood, routine, and convention-
`
`al steps of displaying market information graphically to a trader who enters buy
`
`and sell orders, and sending the trade orders to the exchange. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012) (neither the mere recitation of known technolo-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`gies (computer hardware, software, memory, computer-readable storage medium,
`
`display devices) nor reciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a
`
`process or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-obvious, estab-
`
`lish a technological invention).
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites “[a] method of placing a trade order for a
`
`commodity on an electronic exchange using a graphical user interface and a user
`
`input device.” (’768 patent, 11:46-48.) The ’768 patent admits that at the time of
`
`the alleged invention there were “[a]t least 60 exchanges throughout the world that
`
`utilize electronic trading in varying degrees to trade” commodities. (Id. at 1:26-28.)
`
`It also admits that trading GUIs were known: “[exchange participants’ computers]
`
`use software that creates specialized interactive trading screens on the traders’
`
`desktops. The trading screens enable traders to enter and execute trade orders, ob-
`
`tain market quotes, and monitor positions.” (Id. at 1:60-63.)
`
`Claim 1 also recites “dynamically displaying . . . a first indicator in one of a
`
`plurality of areas in a bid display region . . . along a price axis” and “dynamically
`
`displaying . . . a second indictor in one of a plurality areas in an ask display region
`
`. . . along the price axis.” (Id. at 11:53-64.) But the patent admits that “everyone
`
`logged on to trade can receive [the bids and asks in the market]” (id. at 2:13-17),
`
`and prior art such as TSE and Gutterman demonstrate that aligning bids, asks, and
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`an order entry region with a price axis was well known (TSE at 0107 (Ex. 1017);
`Gutterman, FIG. 2b (Ex. 1011)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`Regarding the “setting a plurality of parameters” and “sending the trade or-
`
`der . . . by a single action” limitations of claim 1, TT admitted these or similar fea-
`
`tures were known:
`
`Figure 2 [of both the ’132 and ’768 patents] provides an exam-
`ple of one particular design of such a prior art style screen. . . .
`Some of these types of tools permitted “single action” order en-
`try that consisted of a trader presetting a default quantity and
`then clicking on a cell in the screen (i.e., pressing a button on
`the tool) to cause a trade order message to be sent to the ex-
`change at the preset quantity and at the price value associated
`with that cell.
`
`(’135 POPR at 7.) TT’s expert, Christopher Thomas, verified these statements.
`
`(Thomas Rep. ¶ 20 (Ex. 1008).) And Belden and Hartman further demonstrate the
`
`conventionality of setting parameters and single-action order entry. (Belden at
`
`0012, 0033 (Ex. 1012); Hartman, 3:31-4:3 (“single-action ordering . . . reduces the
`
`number of purchaser interactions needed to place an order”) (Ex. 1015).)
`
`TT’s claims recite a few well-worn, routine, and conventional GUI features,
`
`each of which had already been implemented in other trading systems. (See ’135
`
`POPR at 16 (TT admitting that “the ’132 patent . . . combined various features that
`
`were kept separate in the prior art”).) And each of these conventional features
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`could have been implemented on a generic computer using generic GUI tools and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`programming languages. (Román Decl. ¶¶ 73-74 (Ex. 1007); ’135 Ins. Dec. at 11-
`
`12; ’768 patent, 4:4-7, 4:60-67.) At best, TT rearranged prior art GUIs (such as
`
`FIG. 2 of the ’768 patent) to display bids and asks along a price axis. But the prior
`
`art shows that this display configuration was well-known. (See, e.g., TSE at 0107;
`
`Gutterman, FIG. 2b.) And simply rearranging the display of data is not enough to
`
`confer patent eligibility, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366,
`
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011), nor qualify as a technological invention.
`
`b)
`
`The ’768 patent does not solve a technical problem using a
`technical solution
`
`The claims do not solve a technical problem using a technical solution. Ac-
`
`cording to the ’768 patent, the “problem” with prior art trading GUIs was that the
`
`market price could change before a trader entered a desired order, causing the trad-
`
`er to “miss his price.” (’768 patent, 2:50-63.) TT has repeatedly stated in related
`
`CBMs that this family of patents (e.g., the ’768, ’132, and ’411 patents) sought to
`
`overcome this problem, and that this family of patents made trading faster and
`
`helps traders visualize information. (See, e.g., ’135 POPR at 8-10; ’135 POR at 5-6
`
`(Ex. 1034); see also Thomas Tr. (Ex. 1009) at 63:7-9 (traders would track inside
`
`market “in their head”); Thomas Rep. ¶ 32 (“significantly reduces the mental cal-
`
`culations required by the preexisting systems”).) But, as the PTAB correctly found
`
`multiple times, missing a trade price is not a technical problem. (’135 Ins. Dec. at
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`11-12; ’135 Reh’g Dec. at 8 (Ex. 1033); ’181 Ins. Dec. (Ex. 1039) at 15-16; ’182
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`Ins. Dec. at 16; see also Román Decl. ¶ 71.) And “accelerat[ing] an ineligible men-
`
`tal process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun
`
`Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Moreover, the ’768 patent’s solution is not technical. According to TT, trad-
`
`ers sacrificed accuracy for speed using conventional trading GUIs. (’135 POPR at
`
`8; ’135 POR at 5.) But TT did not design a more accurate mouse or a computer
`
`that responded faster. Rather, TT’s non-technical solution was simply to rearrange
`
`how known and available market data is displayed on a GUI—albeit into a known
`
`display configuration. TT’s solution may be aesthetic, but it is certainly not tech-
`
`nical. (See Román Decl. ¶¶ 71-75.) Thus, the claims also fail the second prong of
`
`the technological invention test, and the ’768 patent is eligible for CBM review.
`
`3. AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review
`
`TT previously argued in a related CBM for the creation of a GUI exception
`
`to the statute based on Senator Durbin’s statement regarding “novel software tools
`
`and graphical user interfaces.” (’135 POR at 43-44 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5402
`
`at S5428 (Sept. 8, 2011).) But the legislative history is irrelevant here because the
`
`statute unambiguously lacks any such GUI exception. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Al-
`
`lapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568 (2005) (“As we have repeatedly held, the
`
`authoritative statement is the statutory text, not the legislative history or any other
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`extrinsic material.”); Xianli Zhang v. United States, 640 F.3d 1358, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`2011) (may refer to legislative history only if text of statute is ambiguous). As a
`
`result, TT’s cherry-picked quote from the legislative history does not alter the stat-
`
`ute’s meaning. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., 132 S. Ct. 740, 752 (2012) (“[T]he
`
`views of a single legislator, even a bill’s sponsor, are not controlling.”). The Sena-
`
`tor was merely expressing his opinion over the statute’s reach and his hope that the
`
`Office would “keep [it] in mind” when it crafts the technological invention excep-
`
`tion. (157 Cong. Rec. S5433.) This is not sufficient to cast doubt on a properly
`
`promulgated regulation. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1321 (“Even assuming such
`
`statements [from the legislative record] are thought to be relevant, the variety of
`
`conflicting views illustrates why we must focus on the structure and language of
`
`the act, not on what its advocates and detractors may say about it.”).
`
`But should the PTAB turn to the legislative history, claim 1 is squarely with-
`
`in Senator Schumer’s definition of a CBM because he expressly listed methods for
`
`“selling and trading financial instruments and other securities” such as those
`
`claimed here as falling within the definition of a CBM patent. 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5402 at S5432. Senator Schumer further explained that the “method or corre-
`
`sponding apparatus” in the statute’s CBM definition covers “[GUI] claims.” 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S1360 at S1364 (Mar. 8, 2011); see also 157 Cong. Rec. S5402 at
`
`S5409, S5436-37 (Senator Schumer explaining that Congress is particularly con-
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`cerned with patents relying on single- or double-clicking with a mouse). In short,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`the statute unambiguously gave the Office broad discretion to define the technolog-
`
`ical invention exception. AIA § 18(d)(2). And the Office did so, but without TT’s
`
`proposed GUI exemption clause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`III.
`
`Identification of the Challenge
`
`A. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners request review of claims 1-23 on the following grounds: Ground
`
`1: Claims 1-23 are unpatentable under § 101; Ground 2: TSE and Belden render
`
`obvious claims 1-13, 15, 16, 18, and 21-23; and Ground 3: TSE, Belden, and
`
`Cooper render obvious claims 14, 17, 19, and 20.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art
`
`The ’768 patent was filed on October 25, 2006, and claims priority to March
`
`2, 2000. Thus, the earliest possible effective filing date of the ’768 patent is March
`
`2, 2000. Each reference cited above qualifies as prior art to the ’768 patent.
`
`TSE JP, Exhibit 1016 (“Futures/ Option Purchasing System Trading Ter-
`
`minal Operation Guide”), a Tokyo Stock Exchange publication, is prior art at least
`
`under 35 U.S.C § 102(a) because it was published in August of 1998 by giving two
`
`copies to each of the about 200 participants in the Tokyo Stock Exchange. (See
`
`Kawashima Depo. Tr. at 0012-33 (Ex. 1019).) Mr. Kawashima testified that by
`
`“participants” he meant “securities companies for banks who are able to carry out
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`futures options trading at the TSE.” (Id. at 0012.) The participants were free to do
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2
`
`
`
`whatever they wanted with their copies of this publication. (Id. at 0015.) Thus, in
`
`August of 1998 TSE JP was distributed to about 200 companies that engaged in
`
`trading without an injunction of secrecy or a