Paper No. ___
`Filed: February 22, 2017
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘416 PATENT ARE PATENT
`ELIGIBLE UNDER THE TWO-PART ALICE TEST .................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s Recent CQG Decision Makes Clear
`that TT’s Claims Are Patentable ........................................................... 8
`
`TT’s Claims Are Not “Directed to” an Abstract Idea
`Under Alice Part I................................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`TT’s Claims Satisfy Alice Part I Because They Set
`Forth a Particular Way to Construct a Specific
`GUI, Petitioners’ Arguments Grossly
`Overgeneralize the Claimed Invention, and the
`Claimed Invention Does Not Preempt the Alleged
`Abstract Idea .............................................................................12
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`TT’s Claims Recite a Specific Way to
`Construct a Specific GUI Comprising
`Specific Structure, Makeup, and
`Functionality ...................................................................12
`
`Petitioners’ Arguments Grossly
`Overgeneralize the Claimed Invention
`Claimed ...........................................................................15
`
`A Preemption Analysis Supports the Finding
`that TT’s Claims Are Not Directed to the
`Alleged Abstract Idea .....................................................21
`
`TT’s Claims Satisfy Alice Part I Because the
`Claimed Invention Is a Specific Implementation
`Solving a Problem with Prior Art GUIs. ...................................24
`
`TT’s Claims Satisfy Alice Part I Because the
`Claimed Invention Is a Technological
`Improvement Since It Improves Prior Art GUIs ......................27
`
`a.
`
`GUIs are Technology ......................................................28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`b.
`
`The Claims of the ‘416 Patent Recite an
`Improvement to the “Relevant Technology”
`– GUIs. ............................................................................31
`
`TT’s Claims Satisfy Alice Part I Because They Are
`Akin to Mechanical Devices, Which Are
`Undoubtedly Not Abstract ........................................................34
`
`TT’s Claims Are Not Directed to Fundamental
`Economic or Longstanding Commercial Practices,
`or Business Methods .................................................................35
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`TT’s Claims Are Patent Eligible Under Alice Part II
`Because the Claims Set Forth an Inventive Concept ..........................39
`
`III. THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘416 PATENT ARE ELIGIBLE
`UNDER FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASE LAW REGARDING
`USER INTERFACE INVENTIONS .............................................................43
`
`A.
`
`Cases Where the Interface Improvement was Patent
`Eligible ................................................................................................45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`CQG: Claims to an Interface Invention are Patent
`Eligible ......................................................................................45
`
`DDR: Claims to a Particular Way of Solving a
`Problem with Interface Functionality are Patent
`Eligible ......................................................................................46
`
`B.
`
`Cases Where the Invention was UnrelatedUnr to the
`Interface ...............................................................................................48
`
`1.
`
`Ameranth: A Conventional Interface Was Added
`to a Well-Known Business Practice ..........................................48
`
`2. Mortgage Grader: The Purported Invention was a
`Process for Anonymous Loan Shopping, Not a
`Specific Interface ......................................................................48
`
`3.
`
`Electric Power: Claimed Ancillary Displaying of
`Results, Rather than a New Technique or Tool for
`how Results are Displayed ........................................................50
`
`ii
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`4.
`
`Affinity Labs v. DirecTV: Merely Claimed an
`Interface that “Allows” a Step of the Abstract Idea
`to be Performed .........................................................................51
`
`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 ...................................................................................................53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Capital One: Generic GUI Would Preempt
`Application of Pre-Internet Concepts on a Website .................53
`
`Affinity Labs v. Amazon: Results-Focused Claim
`Covered any Form of Customizing an Interface .......................54
`
`Internet Patents: Claimed the Result of
`Maintaining State Rather than How it was
`Accomplished ............................................................................56
`
`IV. PETITIONERS MISCONSTRUE THE CLAIMS AND THE
`LAW TO ASSERT THAT THE CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT
`ELIGIBLE .....................................................................................................57
`
`A.
`
`Improving a Computer Component Confers Patent
`Eligibility .............................................................................................57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Specific GUI Improvements Improve “The Way
`Computers Operate” ..................................................................58
`
`Use of a General-Purpose Computer Does Not
`Doom the Claims ......................................................................58
`
`Software Inventions are Patent Eligible ....................................60
`
`TT’s Claims Are Not Directed to Using a Generic
`Computer to Perform an “Undisputedly Well-
`Known” Practice that “Humans Have Always
`Performed” ................................................................................60
`
`B.
`
`Inventions Do Not Fail the Patent-Eligibility Test
`Because They Benefit a Human User .................................................61
`
`iii
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`CQG Solved a Problem Realized by Traders ...........................62
`
`DDR Solved a Problem Realized by a Website’s
`Owner ........................................................................................62
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3. McRO Solved a Problem Realized by Human
`Animators ..................................................................................63
`
`C.
`
`Inventions do not Fail the Patent-Eligibility Test Because
`a Person Could Perform the Functions Manually ...............................64
`
`D. Ultramercial’s Degree of Particularity Referred to Extra-
`Solution Activity .................................................................................65
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONERS FAIL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIMS
`COVER SIGNALS ........................................................................................66
`
`VI. THE ’416 PATENT IS NOT A CBM PATENT ...........................................68
`
`A.
`
`The ’416 Patent Does Not Claim “Data Processing” or
`“Other Operation” (e.g., a Business Method) .....................................69
`
`1.
`
`The Petition is Completely Silent as to Whether
`the ’416 Patent is Directed to “Data Processing” or
`“Other Operations” ...................................................................69
`
`2.
`
`The ’416 Patent does not Claim “Data Processing” .................70
`
`B.
`
`The ’416 Patent Falls Under the Technological Exception ................72
`
`1.
`
`CQG Sheds Light on CBM Jurisdiction ...................................75
`
`C.
`
`Legislative History Confirms that the Claimed Invention
`is Not a CBM .......................................................................................76
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................79
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 (“the ‘416 patent”) includes two independent
`
`claims and twenty-two dependent claims. The two independent claims recite a
`
`method and a computer readable medium, respectively, which improve the
`
`functioning of a computer by providing a new structure, makeup, and functionality
`
`for a graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool that improves the display of information
`
`to a user and provides more intuitive order entry. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:53-63, 2:8-
`
`26, 3:26-47, 6:3-10, 8:16-56.
`
`Independent claim 1 is illustrative of both the claimed method and computer
`
`readable medium inventions recited in the independent claims. Exemplary
`
`independent claim 1 recites:
`
`A method for facilitating trading and displaying
`
`information regarding the buying and selling of a good, the
`
`method comprising:
`
`displaying a chart on a graphical user interface
`
`comprising a vertical axis of price values and a horizontal axis
`
`of time;
`
`displaying indicators representing historical trading data
`
`for the good at locations along the vertical axis of price values
`
`and the horizontal axis of time;
`
`1
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`providing a plurality of locations on the graphical user
`
`interface to place an order icon with a pointer of a user input
`
`device, each location corresponding to a particular price value
`
`along the vertical axis of price values;
`
`placing an order icon for a particular quantity of the good
`
`at a specific location of the plurality of locations along the
`
`vertical axis of price values with a pointer of an input device,
`
`wherein the specific location on which the order icon is placed
`
`corresponds to a particular price value;
`
`generating an order to buy or sell the particular quantity
`
`of the good at the particular price value responsive to placing
`
`the order icon at the specific location; and
`
`sending the order to an electronic trading system,
`
`wherein the order is for the particular quantity of the good and
`
`at the particular price value determined based on the location
`
`where the order icon was placed.
`
`Independent claim 1 is narrowly drawn to a specific implementation of a GUI tool
`
`and provides for generating a trade order based on placement of an order icon in a
`
`specific location of a chart.
`
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`The specification explains that there are “a variety of ways” to generate a
`
`trade order. Id. at 8:16-56. According to the specification, one way, “as shown in
`
`FIG. 3A, the trader can directly submit an order by using the order task bar 328.”
`
`Id. at 8:17-28. As annotated in FIG. 3A below (“Annotation #1”), the order task
`
`bar 328 is identified with a red box. The order task bar 328 provides a user with
`
`order options to specify value and quantity of either a bid or offer as well as an
`
`expiration period. Id. at 8:19-21. The order options provided by the order task bar
`
`328 allow it to operate as an order ticket that enables the user to enter order
`
`parameters and click a button to place an order. Ex. 2169, ¶37. Order tickets were
`
`well known and conventional ways to enter orders. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Annotation #1
`
`In contrast to order ticket functionality provided by the order task bar 328,
`
`the claimed invention provides a different way to generate trade orders. Ex. 1001,
`
`3
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`8:16-56. As shown in annotated FIG. 3A below (“Annotation #2”), the claimed
`
`invention recites one specific implementation of a GUI tool that allows trade
`
`orders to be generated. The order icon 320 is labelled in Annotation #2 as “Icon
`
`320.” The claims recite that the order icon is placed on a chart at a desired location
`
`that represents a specific price. Id. The placed icon has a value associated with the
`
`specific location at which the order icon is placed. Id. This is labelled in
`
`Annotation #2 as “Placed Icon 320.”
`
`
`
`Annotation #2
`
`
`
`The specification discloses the claimed invention as a particular GUI that
`
`combines both an “intuitive” way to display the information and an “intuitive” way
`
`to enter orders. Ex. 1001, 1:64-67, 2:44 – 3:2, 6:7-67, 8:25-56. For example, as
`
`4
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`discussed in more detail below, the intuitive nature of the GUI tool makes it easier
`
`to use, which leads to improvements in speed, accuracy, and usability. Infra. at
`
`Section II.B.2, 3; Ex.2169,¶¶ 49, 50.
`
`The structure, make-up, and functionality of the claimed GUI tool
`
`differentiates it from other GUI tools (e.g., the order task bar 328) for generating
`
`trade orders. The particular structure, make-up, and functionality recited in the
`
`claims is not found in the other GUI tools. For instance, the claims recite structural
`
`elements of the GUI tool such as a chart comprising a vertical axis of price values
`
`and a horizontal axis of time of the chart, indicators representing historical trading
`
`data for the good, a plurality of locations to place an order icon with a pointer of a
`
`user input device, and an order icon representing a particular quantity of the good.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3A, 3:26-47, 6:1-30, 8:27-55. The claims also recite the make-up,
`
`including the relative position and arrangement, of the structural elements of the
`
`GUI tool. For example, the indicators representing historical trading data are
`
`located along the vertical axis of price values and the horizontal axis of time of the
`
`chart and each of the plurality of locations for placing an order icon correspond to
`
`a particular price value along the vertical axis of price values of the chart. Id.
`
`Similarly, the claims also recite functionality of the GUI tool, such as placing an
`
`order icon and generating an order for a particular price when an order icon is
`
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`placed in a location corresponding to that particular price. Id. The claims also
`
`recite sending the order at the particular price where the order icon is placed. Id.
`
`In this manner, the claimed GUI tool allows the user to “place orders
`
`including bids and offers, on remote client terminals, and this information is routed
`
`to a transaction server” which matches the received bids and offers with a
`
`corresponding order. Id. at 2:11-15. The resulting bid and offer information is
`
`communicated back to the client terminal and the GUI is updated to display the
`
`received information. Id. at 2:11-15. Thus, “the trader is able to make
`
`instantaneous decisions regarding an item while receiving critical information
`
`about other items or the past performance of the current item and other indices.
`
`This is a major advantage over conventional methods of trading in which this
`
`information is not provided concurrently, and if presented at all, is difficult to
`
`process quickly.” Id. at 3:41-47.
`
`II. THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘416 PATENT ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE
`UNDER THE TWO-PART ALICE TEST
`
`In Alice, the Court provided a two-part test. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). In Part I, the focus of a § 101 analysis begins with
`
`examining the claims in light of the specification to determine whether the claims
`
`are “directed to” an abstract idea. Id. at 2355 Only if the claims are “directed to” an
`
`abstract idea does a tribunal need to assess the next part of Alice. In Part II, even if
`
`6
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`a claim is determined to be “directed to” an abstraction, the claim is still patent
`
`eligible if it contains an element 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.” Id. (citation omitted). The concern undergirding § 101 is
`
`preemption of fundamental concepts. See id. at 2354-55, 58.
`
`TT’s claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Alice Part I. Instead,
`
`the claimed invention is directed to a particular way to construct a graphical user
`
`interface (“GUI”)–that is, the specific features, make-up, and functionality of a
`
`GUI tool that can be used for electronic order entry. The specification discloses the
`
`claimed invention as a particular GUI that combines both an “intuitive” way to
`
`display the information and an “intuitive” way to enter orders. The claimed
`
`invention furthermore provides a specific implementation that solves problems
`
`with prior art GUIs.
`
`Even if this Board were to find the claims directed to an abstract idea, the
`
`evidence and testimony identified below shows that the claims include an inventive
`
`concept. Namely, the specification teaches and the claims set forth how the
`
`specific GUI provides an intuitive format to help the user understand the presented
`
`information and an intuitive way to enter orders. Further, testimony submitted by
`
`TT’s witness shows that neither the claimed elements nor the combination as a
`
`whole are directed to routine and conventional technology. Instead, at a minimum,
`
`7
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`the overall ordered combination of the claims as a whole is unconventional and
`
`provides an improvement over the prior art.
`
`A. The Federal Circuit’s Recent CQG Decision Makes Clear that
`TT’s Claims Are Patentable
`
`The recent decision by the Federal Circuit in CQG affirms the principle that
`
`claims such as those found in the ‘416 patent are patent eligible. Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. et al., No. 2016-1616, 2017 WL
`
`192716, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2017). CQG is important because it provides
`
`guidance on the proper analysis for the claims in the ‘416 patent. As this Board is
`
`aware, the Federal Circuit considered and fully analyzed GUI claims set forth in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the ‘132 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,677,340 (“the
`
`‘304 patent”). While the claimed invention in the ‘416 patent is different from the
`
`inventions in the ‘132 and ‘304 patents, the claims are similarlysimilarly drawn to
`
`an improved GUI and the analysis is the same. Specifically, in CQG, the Court
`
`analyzed the claimed specificity, limitations, and elements of the ‘132 and ‘304
`
`patent claims. Id. at *1-2. Like the ‘132 and ‘304 patent claims, the ‘416 patent
`
`claims are directed to the structure, makeup, and functionality of a specific GUI
`
`tool that solves problems with prior GUIs. As such, CQG is highly relevant to this
`
`proceeding and provides the best guidance on how the Federal Circuit analyzes
`
`inventions directed to improvements of GUIs.
`
`8
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`In CQG, the Federal Circuit reviewed the legal issue of § 101 de novo, as the
`
`Federal Circuit would in an appeal from the Board, and found the claims patent
`
`eligible under either Part of Alice. Id. at *2-4.
`
`The Federal Circuit concluded that the GUI claims were directed to “‘a
`
`specific improvement in the way computers operate,’ for the claimed graphical
`
`user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading system ‘directed
`
`to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts’” and as
`
`such were not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at *4 (quoting Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). This was based on
`
`the fact that the the ‘132 and ‘304 patents “solve[d] problems of prior graphical
`
`user interface devices … in the context of computerized trading[] relating to speed,
`
`accuracy and usability.” CQG, at *2 (citing Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., v. CQG,
`
`Inc., No. 05-cv-4811, 2015 WL 774655, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)). As
`
`discussed in much more detail below, the ’416 claims are patent eligible because
`
`they “do not simply claim displaying information on a [GUI].” See CQG, at *3.
`
`Instead, the ’416 claims “require a specific, structured [GUI] paired with a
`
`prescribed functionality directly related to the [GUI]’s structure that is addressed to
`
`and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.” Id. In
`
`particular, the ’416 invention improves prior trading interfaces by providing a
`
`specific GUI tool that generates trade orders when an order icon is placed on a
`
`9
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`specific location of a chart associated with a price level. See, supra. at Section I.;
`
`infrainfra. at Section II.B. Under Alice part II, the combined claim elements
`
`provide an inventive concept: “specific structure and concordant functionality of
`
`the [GUI],” e.g., displaying bid and offer indicators relative to a price axis, setting
`
`a default quantity, and locations along the price axis, selected to set a desired price
`
`for an order. See CQG, at *3.
`
`In other CBM proceedings, Petitioners have attempted to diminish the
`
`impact of CQG by pointing to the fact that the case is non-precedential. See, e.g.,
`
`CBM2015-00161, Paper 128 at *1 (Jan. 30, 2017). However, CQG’s non-
`
`precedential designation merely means it does “not add[] significantly to the body
`
`of law,” Fed. Cir. R. 32.1(b). Yet, Petitioners completely ignore that CQG is a
`
`Federal Circuit decision demonstrating how to apply the framework of the Alice
`
`test to similar GUI claims. Furthermore, Petitioners do not provide any reasoning
`
`as to why the CQG analysis should not be applied to the claims of the ‘416 patent,
`
`except to assert that the facts or record are not exactly the same. CQG, at *3-4;
`
`CBM2016-00032, Paper 29 at 19-21 (Feb. 8, 2017).
`
`Petitioners’ assertion that the record and facts are different is misguided and
`
`misleading. The analysis is still applicable and should be applied. Under
`
`Petitioners’ logic, nearly every Federal Circuit decision would be irrelevant
`
`because no two cases have the same facts and record. However, the underlying
`
`10
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`principles still apply. In other words, CQG is highly instructive on analyzing GUI
`
`claims. CQG affirmed that the district court’s conclusion was proper under the
`
`same precedent that controls here. Moreover, the law and precedent articulated in
`
`CQG is equally applicable in this matter because the issues presented in this CBM
`
`petition mirrors the arguments decided in CQG. Compare Ex. 2412, 20-23 and Ex.
`
`2413 with CBM2015-00161, Paper 2 (‘304 Petition) and CBM2015-00182, Paper
`
`7 (‘132 Petition).
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner’s arguments that the Federal Circuit did not have
`
`evidence of conventionality before them is inaccurate. See, e.g., CBM2016-00032,
`
`Paper 29 at 18-22. For example, in a recent filing before this Board, the Petitioners
`
`argue that the Federal Circuit did not consider Intex. CBM2016-00031, Paper 29 at
`
`5-6. However, the Appellant included Intex as an example in their appeal brief and
`
`argued conventionality at length, so that very argument was before the Federal
`
`Circuit. Ex. 2412, 2413. Thus, Petitioners’ argument that the Federal Circuit did
`
`not consider conventionality is wrong. Cf. CBM2015-00181, Paper 137.
`
`11
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`B.
`
`TT’s Claims Are Not “Directed to” an Abstract Idea Under Alice
`Part I
`
`1.
`
`TT’s Claims Satisfy Alice Part I Because They Set Forth a
`Particular Way to Construct a Specific GUI, Petitioners’
`Arguments Grossly Overgeneralize the Claimed Invention,
`and the Claimed Invention Does Not Preempt the Alleged
`Abstract Idea
`
`a.
`
`TT’s Claims Recite a Specific Way to Construct a
`Specific GUI Comprising Specific Structure, Makeup,
`and Functionality
`
`The claims of the ‘416 patent recite a specific way to achieve a desired
`
`outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and are
`
`therefore patent eligible. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
`
`1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`TT’s claims set forth a specific way to construct a specific GUI with specific
`
`structure, makeup, and functionality. TT’s claims set forth a construction of a more
`
`intuitive GUI that allows a user to generate a trade order by placing an order icon
`
`at a particular location on a chart on a graphical user interface. Supra at I.
`
`TT’s claims do not attempt to abstractly cover results. McRO, 837 F.3d at
`
`1314. (“The abstract idea exception has been applied to prevent patenting of claims
`
`that abstractly cover results”); see also id. (citing Le Roy v Tatham, 55 U.S. (14
`
`How.) 156, 175, 14 L.Ed. 367 (1853) (“A patent is not good for an effect, or the
`
`result of a certain process” because such patents “would prohibit all other persons
`
`from making the same thing by any means whatsoever.”). Instead, TT’s claims set
`
`12
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`forth a GUI that is comprised of specific structure, makeup, and functionality that
`
`provide a specific means or method (generally speaking, placing order icons in
`
`specific locations) for achieving the result of a more intuitive interface. Supra at
`
`Section I.
`
`The invention recited by the ‘416 patent claims are analogous to the claimed
`
`inventions in CQG, McRo, and Enfish. In each of these cases, the claimed
`
`inventions set forth a particular way to achieve a desired outcome or result.
`
`Under the framework and reasoning set forth in CQG, the claims of the ‘416
`
`patent do not simply recite a result – e.g., Petitioners’ alleged abstract idea of
`
`“graphing (or displaying) trading data to assist a trader to place an order.” Petition
`
`at 26-27. The claims of the ’416 patent are patent eligible because they “do not
`
`simply claim displaying information on a [GUI].” CQG, at *3. Instead, the ‘416
`
`claims “require a specific, structured [GUI] paired with a prescribed functionality
`
`directly related to the [GUI]’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a
`
`specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.” Id. In particular, the
`
`’416 claims improve prior trading interfaces by providing a specific GUI tool that
`
`generates trade orders when an order icon is placed on a specific location of a chart
`
`associated with a price level. See, supra at I and II.B.2, 3, Ex. 1001, 1:53-63, 2:8-
`
`26, 3:26-47, 6:3-10, 8:16-56; Fig. 3A.
`
`13
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`In McRO, the claims defined a specific way, namely a use of particular rules
`
`to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes, to produce accurate and
`
`realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, and thus
`
`were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-1316. In McRO, the
`
`Federal Circuit held that “[b]y incorporating the specific features of the rules as
`
`claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically
`
`animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not
`
`preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques.”
`
`Id. at 1316. The same is true for the ‘416 claims. The claims in the ‘416 patent
`
`provides a specific way, namely the structure, make-up, and functionality of
`
`placing order icons in specific locations on a chart that are associated with
`
`particular price values, to generate trade orders. Supra at I.
`
`In Enfish, the Federal Circuit held that the claimed database software
`
`designed as a “self-referential” table is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`because it is not directed to an abstract idea. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1327. The Federal
`
`Circuit specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology,
`
`such as chip architecture or LED display, when appropriately claimed, are
`
`undoubtedly not abstract. Id. at 1335. The Federal Circuit concluded that the
`
`claimed invention in Enfish improved the database or data structure and as such
`
`improved the functioning of the computer. Id. at 1336. In Enfish, the Federal
`
`14
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`Circuit found the claims patent eligible because “the self-referential table recited in
`
`the claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the
`
`way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.” Id. at 1339. The claims in
`
`the ‘416 patent are similar to those in Enfish because the claimed invention
`
`improves the GUI, which like a database, is a component of the computer and
`
`improves the functioning of the computer. See, e.g., CQG, at *4 (the GUI claims
`
`are “‘directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,’ [] for the
`
`claimed graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a
`
`trading system ‘directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in
`
`the software arts.’”)
`
`b.
`
`Petitioners’ Arguments Grossly Overgeneralize the
`Claimed Invention Claimed
`
`Despite the specificity recited in the claims, Petitioners incorrectly allege
`
`that the ‘416 claims are merely directed to “graphing (or displaying) trading data to
`
`assist a trader to place an order.” Petition at 26-27. This is inaccurate for several
`
`reasons but, most importantly, because Petitioners grossly overgeneralize the
`
`claimed invention and ignore nearly all of the claim elements that make up the
`
`specifically claimed GUI.
`
`Petitioners conflate two distinct principles – namely, whether a claim
`
`“involves” an abstract idea or is “directed to” an abstract idea. In Alice, the
`
`15
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`Supreme Court cautioned against this type of reasoning because at some level, “all
`
`inventions … embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. An invention is not
`
`rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. See
`
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981). Instead, courts are instructed to look
`
`at the actual claim language.
`
`The Federal Circuit has also cautioned against overgeneralizing the claimed
`
`invention. In particular, the Federal Circuit has reasoned that claims should not be
`
`overgeneralized or simplified into their gist or core principles when identifying
`
`what the claims are “directed to” under Alice Part I. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337.
`
`In Enfish, the Court cautioned “describing the claims at such a high level of
`
`abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the
`
`exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” Id. (emphasis added). Part 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 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
`
`Likewise, in McRO, the Federal Circuit cautioned that courts “must be
`
`careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims by looking at them generally and
`
`16
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, 822 F.3d at
`
`1313 (citation omitted).
`
`In CQG, the Appellant argued that “[t]he Asserted Claims recite the abstract
`
`idea of placing an order for a commodity on an electronic exchange, based on
`
`observed market information, as well as updating the market information.” Trading
`
`Techs. Int’l, Inc., 2015 WL 774655, at *4. However, this oversimplification was
`
`expressly rejected:
`
`CQG ignores much of the details of the representative
`
`claims. Neither the claims of the ‘304 patent nor the claims of
`
`the ‘132 patent are directed to solely “setting, displaying, and
`
`selecting” data or information that is visible on the GUI device.
`
`Rather, the claims are directed to solving a problem that existed
`
`with prior art GUIs, namely, that the best bid and best ask
`
`prices would change based on updates received from the
`
`market.
`
`Id. at 4. Affirming the District Court’s opinion, the Federal Circuit explained “we
`
`agree with [the conclusion of patent eligibility] for all of the reasons articulated by
`
`the district court” and that the “district court’s rulings are in accord with
`
`precedent.” CQG, at *3.
`
`17
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00087
`U.S. Patent 7,412,416
`
`
`Yet, Petitioners ignore and overgeneralize the claim elements of the ‘416
`
`patent. Petitioners argue that the c