`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADSTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,412,416 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. 7,412,416 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................................................................... 3 
`Grounds For Standing ..................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Petitioners’ Certification ....................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`The ’416 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent. ....................... 4 
`1. 
`The ’416 patent claims a covered business method. .................. 4 
`2. 
`The ’416 patent is not for a “technological invention.”............. 6 
`3. 
`AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review. .............. 11 
`III.  Overview of the ’416 patent ......................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`Prosecution history .............................................................................. 13 
`B. 
`Level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention ............. 16 
`C. 
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 16 
`Identification of the Challenge ..................................................................... 17 
`IV. 
`V.  Ground 1: Claims 1-24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`because they are directed to an ineligible abstract idea. ............................... 20 
`A. 
`The ’416 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of
`graphing (or displaying) trading data to assist a trader to place
`an order (Alice step one). ..................................................................... 21 
`1. 
`Graphing (or displaying) trading data to assist a trader to
`place an order is directed to a fundamental economic
`practice. .................................................................................... 22 
`Graphing (or displaying) trading data to assist a trader to
`place an order is directed to an idea of itself. .......................... 25 
`The ’416 patent claims do not recite an inventive concept (Alice
`step two). ............................................................................................. 27 
`1. 
`Beyond the abstract idea, independent claims 1 and 14
`recite only insignificant and conventional extra-solution
`activities. .................................................................................. 28 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`2. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`The dependent claims merely recite well-understood,
`routine, conventional extra-solution activity. .......................... 32 
`The ’416 patent claims are not rooted in computer technology. ......... 35 
`The absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate
`patent eligibility. .................................................................................. 40 
`TT v. CQG is not controlling precedent. ............................................. 41 
`E. 
`VI.  Ground 2: Claims 14-22 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
`they are not directed to a statutory class of subject matter. .......................... 42 
`VII.  Ground 3: TSE, Bay, and Subler render claims 1-24 obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103............................................................................................. 42 
`A. 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 1 and 14. ...................... 43 
`1. 
`Preambles ................................................................................. 43 
`“displaying a chart on a graphical user interface . . .” ........... 48 
`2. 
`“displaying indicators representing historical trading
`3. 
`data . . .” ................................................................................... 53 
`“providing a plurality of locations . . .” ................................... 54 
`“placing an order icon for a particular quantity . . .” ............. 58 
`“generating an order to buy or sell the particular quantity
`. . .” ........................................................................................... 68 
`“sending the order to an electronic trading system . . .” ......... 70 
`7. 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 2 and 15. ...................... 72 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 3 and 16. ...................... 72 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 4 and 17. ...................... 73 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 5 and 18. ...................... 74 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 6 and 19. ...................... 75 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 7 and 20. ...................... 76 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 8 and 21. ...................... 78 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claim 9. ................................... 80 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 10 and 11. .................... 81 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 12 and 22. .................... 82 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claim 13. ................................. 83 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`F. 
`G. 
`H. 
`I. 
`J. 
`K. 
`L. 
`
`4. 
`5. 
`6. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`M. 
`TSE, Bay, and Subler render obvious claims 23 and 24. .................... 84 
`VIII.  Ground 4: Claims 2 and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`4. ................................................................................................................... 85 
`IX.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 86 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases 
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................. passim
`Ariosa Diags. v. DNA Diags. Ctr.,
`778 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 40
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 31, 36, 37
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .............................................................................................. 23
`Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd.,
`CBM2013-00005, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B., Mar. 29, 2013) .................................. 5
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc.,
`291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 19
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................ 25, 29, 31
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 35, 36, 37
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) ............................................................. 23
`Ex parte Mewherter,
`107 USPQ2d 1857 (B.P.A.I. 2013) ...................................................................... 17
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005) .............................................................................................. 11
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 US 63 (1972) .................................................................................................. 34
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00182, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2016) .......................................... 17
`In re Distefano, III,
`808 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2015) ................................................................ 33
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`In re Gulack,
`703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 33
`In re Nuijten,
`550 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 17, 42
`In re Russell,
`48 F.2d 668 (CCPA 1931) .................................................................................... 33
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch.,
`CBM2013-00049 (P.T.A.B. 2015) ....................................................................... 28
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 29, 31
`Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................. passim
`Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs.,
`132 S. Ct. 740 (2012) ............................................................................................ 11
`SightSound Tech’s, LLC. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 2015-1159, slip op. (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................. 8, 10
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Technologies,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper No. 19 (P.T.A.B., Dec. 2, 2014) ..................................... 5
`TLI Comm’ns LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C.,
`Case No. 2015-1372, slip op. (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................... 38, 39
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG,
`No. 05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ........................................................................... 41
`Ultramercial v. Hulu,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 26, 28
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................. 4, 10, 25
`Xianli Zhang v. United States,
`640 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C § 101 ...................................................................................................... 1, 17
`
`vi
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................... 18
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................... 1, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 .................................................................................................. 18
`AIA § 18(d)(2) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.032 ...................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ....................................................................................... 6, 7, 12
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 4
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012). ...................................................... 7
`
`
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011) ...................................................................... 12
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (Sept. 8, 2011) ................................................................ 11, 12
`M.P.E.P. § 2144.03(c) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Ex No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2 to Friesen et al. (“ʼ416 patent”)
`1002
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,522, which became the
`’416 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’416 File History”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 to Friesen et al. (“ʼ056 patent”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00131, Paper 19 (“’131 Ins. Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00131, Paper 24 (“’131 Reh’g Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00131, Paper 38 (“’131 POR”)
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00179, Paper 21
`(“’179 POPR”)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill.
`Feb. 24, 2015) (“TT v. CQG Slip. Op.”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`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”)
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guidelines,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “System for Buying and Selling Futures and
`Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE”)
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`viii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`1018
`
`Ex No. Description
`1017
`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 (“Kawashima Dep. Tr.”)
`1019
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631 to Schott (“Schott”)
`1020
`U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992 to Subler et al. (“Subler”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`1021
`1022
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`1023
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`1024 WO 90/11571 to Belden
`1025 Mark J. Powers, “Starting Out in Futures Trading,” Sixth Edition,
`2001 (“Powers”)
`History of the American and NASDAQ Stock Exchanges
`David M. Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” 1993 (“Weiss”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design,”
`First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`Richard W. Arms Jr., “Profits in Volume - Equivolume Charting,”
`1971 (“Arms”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc., 1985
`(“Inside Macintosh”)
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`
`ix
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`Ex No. Description
`1036
`Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed,
`Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`1037
`U.S. Patent No. 1,760,287 to Schippers (“Schippers”)
`1038
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`1039
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`1040 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1998.
`1041
`TradeStation Gr’p, Inc. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-
`00161, Paper 29 (“’161 Ins. Dec.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,347,452 to Bay, Jr. (“Bay”)
`
`
`1042
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc.,
`
`and TradeStation Securities, Inc., petition for Covered Business Method review of
`
`claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 (Ex. 1001 (“’416 patent”)) owned by
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”). This Petition demonstrates that
`
`claims 1-24 of the ’416 patent are more likely than not unpatentable.
`
`First, claims 1-24 are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101 because
`
`each merely recites the abstract idea of graphing (or displaying) trading data to
`
`assist a trader to place an order. The claims represent nothing more than the well
`
`understood, routine, and conventional activities of displaying a chart of trading
`
`data on a graphical user interface (“GUI”), and placing an order using, for
`
`example, the extremely well-known drag-and-drop GUI operation. The claims do
`
`no more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea via the
`
`GUI. A computer is not even recited in the claims.
`
`Second, claims 1-24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The claims recite a
`
`method for displaying information regarding, and facilitating the buying and
`
`selling of, a good. The method includes allowing a trader to set trade order
`
`parameters using well-known GUI operations such as drag-and-drop, and then send
`
`the order to an exchange. TSE, which is prior art because it was distributed in
`
`August of 1998 to about 200 companies that traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange,
`
`teaches a GUI for trading financial products that allows a trader to set order
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`parameters using a point-and-click operation—a well-known and obvious variant
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`
`
`of the drag-and-drop operation. Prior art such as Subler teaches the conventional
`
`feature of using a drag-and-drop operation during order placement.
`
`Thus, the ’416 patent merely utilizes well-known and simple GUI design
`
`techniques in a financial trading product. Petitioners request that the PTAB
`
`institute trial 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
`
`Technologies, Inc., and IBFX, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’416 patent is currently involved in the following proceedings that may
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: TradeStation Technologies,
`
`Inc. v. TT, 0:16-cv-60296 (S.D. Fl.); TT v. BGC Partners, Inc., et al., 1:10-cv-
`
`00715 (N.D. Ill.); TT v. FuturePath Trading, LLC, 1:10-cv-00720 (N.D. Ill.); TT v.
`
`IBG LLC et al., 1:10-cv-00721 (N.D. Ill.); TT v. Cunningham Trading Systems,
`
`LLC et al., 1:10-cv-00726 (N.D. Ill.). The ’416 patent claims benefit as a
`
`continuation application to U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 (“’999 patent”), which is the
`
`subject of IBG LLC et al. v. TT, CBM2016-00032. Additionally, U.S. Patent No.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`7,533,056 (Ex. 1003 (“’056 patent”)), which also claims benefit as a continuation
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`
`
`to the ’999 patent, is involved in: IBG LLC et al. v. TT, CBM2015-00179; and ex
`
`parte reexamination control no. 90/013,578. Two pending U.S. Patent Applications
`
`claim priority as continuations to the ’999 patent: 14/828,328, filed August 17,
`
`2015; and 14/884,207, filed October 15, 2015.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Petitioners appoint Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No. 36,013) as its lead counsel,
`
`and Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) and Richard M. Bemben (Reg. No.
`
`68,658) as its back-up counsel, 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) of Fish &
`
`Richardson P.C. 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 PTABINBOUND@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 ’416 patent: TT v. IBG
`
`LLC et al., 1:10-cv-721 (N.D. Ill.) (consolidated with TT v. BGC Partners, Inc., et
`
`al., 1:10-cv-00715 (N.D. Ill.)); and TradeStation Technologies, Inc. v. TT, 0:16-cv-
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`60296 (S.D. Fl.). Petitioners also certify that they are not estopped or barred from
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`
`
`filing this Petition—they have not been a party or a privy to a party in any post-
`
`grant proceeding of the ’416 patent, nor filed a civil action challenging any of its
`
`claims.
`
`B.
`
`The ’416 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent.
`
`The ’416 patent is a CBM patent because it claims a method for facilitating
`
`the buying and selling of a good and is not for a technological invention. In
`
`CBM2015-00179, the Board analyzed the ’056 patent—a sibling of the ’416 patent
`
`that claims a similar method for trading—and found it eligible for CBM review.
`
`And contrary to TT’s previous arguments, GUIs are not exempt from CBM review.
`
`1. The ’416 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). The term “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).
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`The ’416 patent meets this definition. Claim 1, e.g., recites a “method for
`
`facilitating trading and displaying information regarding the buying and selling of
`
`a good,” and recites steps of: (i) displaying a chart on a GUI comprising a vertical
`
`axis of price values and a horizontal axis of time; (ii) displaying indicators
`
`representing historical trading data for the good on the chart; (iii) providing a
`
`plurality of locations on the GUI to place an order icon; (iv) placing an order icon
`
`for a particular quantity of the good at a specific location along the vertical axis;
`
`(v) generating an order to buy or sell the particular quantity of the good; and (vi)
`
`sending the order to an electronic trading system. (’416 patent, claim 1.) Each
`
`of these activities is inherently financial in nature. For example, displaying
`
`historical trading data is a financial activity. See Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert
`
`Pty Ltd., CBM2013-00005, Paper No. 18 at 5 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013) (informing
`
`a user of certain stock market events is a financial service). Further, “placing an
`
`order icon for a particular quantity of [a] good at a specific location along” a price
`
`axis where the location corresponds to a particular price value for the good is a
`
`financial activity. Similarly, sending an order to an electronic trading system is a
`
`financial activity. See TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. TT, CBM2014-00135,
`
`Paper No. 19 at 9 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014) (“Displaying market information and
`
`sending a trade order to an electronic exchange are activities that are financial in
`
`nature.”); (Ex. 1025 (“Powers”) at 324-25). And the other 23 claims in the ’416
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`patent further demonstrate its CBM eligibility. (See, e.g., ’416 patent, claims 2 (the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`
`
`historical trading data is of the good), claims 6-7 (defining the historical trading
`
`data), claim 10-11 (defining the good as either a commodity or stock), claim 13
`
`(“the electronic trading system comprises a matching process for matching orders
`
`of a bid type or an offer type”), claim 14 (limitations of claim 1 recited as a
`
`“computer readable medium”).)
`
`Collectively, the claims are directed to a method for facilitating trading in an
`
`electronic trading system. Not only does the preamble recite that the collection of
`
`method steps is drawn to “facilitating trading and displaying information
`
`regarding the buying and selling of a good,” but the ’416 patent illustrates a GUI
`
`(e.g., FIGs. 3A-E, 4 and 9) displaying various financial indicia, thereby confirming
`
`that the patent is directed to financial services. Indeed, the Board has already
`
`determined that the ’056 patent—a sibling of the ’416 patent that claims a similar
`
`method for trading—meets the definition of a CBM. (Ex. 1005 (“’131 Ins. Dec.”)
`
`at 8; Ex. 1006 (“’131 Reh’g Dec.”) at 1-5.)
`
`2. The ’416 patent is not for a “technological invention.”
`
`The ’416 patent is not for a “technological invention.” A “technological
`
`invention” is determined by considering whether the claimed subject matter as a
`
`whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art,
`
`and solves a technical problem using a technical solution. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`When applying the technological invention test, it is appropriate to consider the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`
`
`Office Patent Trial Guide, which provides exemplary claim drafting techniques
`
`that do not render a patent a technological invention. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763-
`
`64 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the Trial Guide, (a) “[m]ere recitation of known
`
`technologies, such as computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`
`software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, display devices
`
`or databases . . .[;] (b) [r]eciting the use of known prior art technology to
`
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-
`
`obvious[; and] (c) [c]ombining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected,
`
`or predictable result of that combination” are insufficient to establish a
`
`technological invention. Id. Yet, as demonstrated below, the ’416 patent claims—
`
`in their entirety—employ precisely these claim drafting techniques and therefore
`
`fail both prongs of the technological invention test under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`In short, the claims (and in particular claims 1 and 14) recite trading
`
`software that is implemented using conventional computer hardware, such as
`
`personal computers, servers and networks, and therefore do not include a
`
`technological feature or implement a technological solution. The claims do not
`
`even recite a computer. Rather, the only alleged “structure” recited in claim 1 is a
`
`graphical user interface and an input device. (’416 patent, claim 1.) These two
`
`claim features are notoriously well-known concepts as demonstrated herein. And
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`the ’416 patent itself admits that the computing device used to display the
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`graphical user interface and that performs the claimed method—i.e., conventional
`
`computer functions such as “displaying,” “providing,” “placing . . . with a pointer
`
`of an input device,” and “sending”—need not be any specific hardware but rather
`
`can be “personal computers, terminals as part of a network, or any other computing
`
`device.” (Id. at 4:34-36.) And, electronic trading was well known as of the filing
`
`date, going back as far as 1971 when NASDAQ set up the first electronic stock
`
`exchange. (Ex. 1026 (History of the American and NASDAQ Stock Exchanges) at
`
`1.)
`
`Because the claims recite only conventional prior art features, the result is
`
`entirely normal, expected, and predictable. See 77 Fed. Reg.at 48,763-64 (claims
`
`drawn to combinations of structures that achieve normal, expected, and predictable
`
`results are not technological). As described in detail below, the claims of the ’416
`
`patent do not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious over the prior
`
`art. See infra Section VII; (Ex. 1012 (“Román Decl.”), ¶¶ 71-168 (demonstrating
`
`that claims 1-24 are obvious)); SightSound Tech’s, LLC. v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d
`
`1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (upholding the PTAB’s technological invention
`
`analysis, which relied on prior art submitted with the petition that demonstrated
`
`that the claims-at-issue were obvious). Rather, they recite only well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional steps of displaying to a trader a chart that includes prices
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`on a graphical user interface, entering buy and sell orders, and sending the trader’s
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`
`
`orders to an exchange to be executed. See infra Section VII; (Román Decl., ¶¶ 71-
`
`168; see also ’416 patent, 1:34-52 (admitted conventional activities of an
`
`exchange).)
`
`Moreover, the ’416 patent does not provide a technical solution to a
`
`technical problem. The inventors allegedly recognized that trading systems
`
`suffered from a problem: conventional trading systems made it difficult for a trader
`
`to quickly and effectively process disparate information from multiple diverse
`
`sources in order to make an informed transaction decision. (See ’416 patent, 1:56-
`
`63.) Indeed, the Specification confirms that the purported problem facing traders
`
`was the inability to anticipate market movement. (Id. at 1:28-32 (“The successful
`
`trader anticipates the rise or fall of the value of an item and performs his or her
`
`own transaction before the rest of the market is aware of the item’s potential gain
`
`or loss in value. Thus, anticipation of the market and specifically of the future
`
`demand for an item of interest is critical to the success of a trader.”).) The
`
`Specification also highlights the problem and importance of informing a trader of
`
`certain market events so that the trader may use that information to facilitate
`
`trading a commodity. (Id. at 2:19-26.) Yet, each of these so-called problems are
`
`business, financial, or trader problems, not technical or computer problems, as the
`
`Board recognized in CBM2014-00131 of the sibling ’056 patent. (’131 Ins. Dec. at
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`8 (“informing a trader of certain stock market trends or events is more of a
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`financial problem than a technical problem”).)
`
`Not only is the problem not technical, but the purported solution is also not
`
`technical. The ’416 patent simply provides a graphical representation of what a
`
`trader would do in his mind, thus allowing the trader to better anticipate market
`
`movement. (’416 patent, 1:56-60.) Importantly, TT did not design a more accurate
`
`mouse or computer that responded faster and more efficiently. Rather, TT’s non-
`
`technical solution was to rearrange available market data and provide locations to
`
`place a trade on a GUI—albeit into a known display configuration—and allow a
`
`trader to send a trade to an electronic trading system by performing a well-known
`
`drag-and-drop action. See infra Section VII. TT’s solution may be aesthetic, but it
`
`is certainly not technical. (See ’131 Ins. Dec. at 7 (presenting data, even in an
`
`intuitive format, does not “make[] a meaningful distinction for purposes of
`
`determining whether a claim is to a technological invention”).) And, merely
`
`assisting a trader in making quick mental calculations—the purpose of a general
`
`purpose computer—is not technical in nature. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1327 (not
`
`technological if conventional); SightSound, 809 F.3d at 1316 (not technological if
`
`obvious over the prior art). Thus, TT’s claims also fail the second prong of the
`
`technological invention test. Accordingly, the ’416 patent is a CBM patent that is
`
`eligible for CBM review based on at least claims 1 and 14.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`3. AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review.
`
`TT has previously argued for the creation of a GUI exception to the statute
`
`based on Senator Durbin’s statement regarding “novel software tools and [GUIs].”
`
`(Ex. 1007 (“’131 POR”) at 45-48 (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. Allapattah
`
`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
`
`extrinsic material.”); Xianli Zhang v. United States, 640 F.3d 1358, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (may re