Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 11
`Entered: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`IBG LLC, and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-001721
`Patent No. 7,783,556 B1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
` PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 11
`Entered: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`IBG LLC, and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-001721
`Patent No. 7,783,556 B1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
` PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation Securities, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) on August 12,
`2015, that requests review under the transitional program for covered
`business method patents of the AIA2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 B1 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’556 patent”). Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–
`22 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’556 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On
`February 12, 2016, we instituted a covered business method patent review
`(Paper 18, “Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”) based upon Petitioner’s
`assertion that claims 1–22 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`Subsequent to institution, IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC filed
`a Petition and Motion for Joinder with the instant proceeding. IBG LLC and
`Interactive Brokers LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.,
`CBM2016-00040, Papers 3, 4. On April 4, 2016, we instituted a covered
`business method patent review and granted the Motion, joining IBG LLC
`and Interactive Brokers LLC as a petitioner in this covered business method
`patent review. Paper 23.
`Thereafter, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Patent Owner’s Response on June 26, 2016 (Paper 43, “PO. Resp.”)
`and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 61, “Pet. Reply”) to Patent Owner’s
`Response.
`
`
`2 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 65, “Motion” or
`“Mot.”) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 67) to Patent Owner’s
`Motion. Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 68) in support of its Motion.
`We held a joint hearing of this case and several other related cases on
`October 19, 2016. Paper 83 (“Tr.”).
`After oral hearing, the Federal Circuit issued a decision, Trading
`Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616, 2017 WL 192716 (Fed. Cir.
`Jan. 18, 2017), determining that claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304 (“the
`’304 patent”) and 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent”) are patent eligible under §
`101. The ’304 patent and the ’132 patent are directed to similar subject
`matter as the ’556 patent. Petitioner and Patent Owner, with authorization
`(Paper 79), each filed supplemental briefing addressing the impact of that
`decision on this proceeding. Paper 82; Paper 80 (“PO Br.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–22 of the ’556 patent are patent
`ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’556 patent is the subject of numerous related U.S. district court
`
`proceedings. Pet. 2–3; Paper 5, 2–6; Paper 26, 1.
`
`
`C. The ’556 Patent
`The ’556 patent is titled “System and Method for Displaying Order
`
`Information in Relation to a Derivative of Price” and issued from an
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`application filed on March 12, 2004. Ex. 1001, [54], [22]. The ’556 patent
`discloses that electronic exchanges provide data feeds to connected traders.
`See id. at 1:13–44. The data feeds are displayed to traders using “a variety
`of different formats, any of which would be known to one of ordinary skill
`in the art.” Id. at 1:45–47. The ’556 patent depicts two examples of typical
`displays or graphical user interfaces (“GUI”) in Figures 1 and 2. Id. at 1:47–
`2:17. Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`
`Figures 1 and 2 depict example prior art trading screens that convey
`
`market information received from an electronic exchange to a trader. Id. at
`2:48–54. In Figure 1, trading screen 100 has a mark grid section 104 that
`displays tradable object information, such as bid quantities 110, bid prices
`112, sell prices 114, and sell quantities 116. Id. at 1:56–64. Trading screen
`200 in Figure 2 displays the same type of information except that the bids
`202 and offers 204 are displayed in association with price values along an
`axis. Id. at 2:8–14. To place an order, a trader simply clicks on certain areas
`of trading screen 200, such as one of bids 202. See id. at 2:14–17.
`
`The ’556 patent discloses that traders are often interested in
`information not normally provided in an exchange’s data feed or displayed
`on a trading screen and discloses that the traders must make “quick mental
`calculations, use charting software, or look to other sources” for this
`information. Id. at 2:18–33. The ’556 patent, thus, discloses “a system and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`method for displaying, on a trading screen, order information in relation to a
`derivative of price.” Id. at 2:34–38. A derivative of price is “anything that
`has some dependence on or relationship to price.” Id. at 3:33–34. Figure 8
`of the ’556 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 8 depicts an embodiment of a trading screen similar to trading
`
`screen 200 depicted in Figure 2, except that the value axis depicted in Figure
`8 includes price derivative information. The example price derivative
`information shown in Figure 8 is net change. Id. at 9:51–10:6. Net change
`is the value at a current point minus value at a reference point. Id. at 9:63–
`64. For the example depicted in Figure 8, the reference point is set at
`yesterday’s settlement price in unit of ticks (i.e., the minimum change in a
`price value that is set by the exchange for each tradable object), which was
`“125.” Id. at 9:53–57. The last traded price, indicated by the “5” in the last
`traded quantity indicator column, is “230” and, thus, the net change is 230–
`125 or +105 at the last traded price. Id. at 9:57–62. As can be seen from
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`Figure 8 above, a “+105” indicator is displayed next to the last traded price
`of “230.”
`
`The ’556 patent discloses another embodiment that has profit and loss
`as the price derivative information. Id. at 13:50–51.
`If a trader bought one lot of a particular tradeable object at “230”
`then . . . the value axis might include at “0” associated with the
`price of “230,” and then “+1” associated with “231,” “+2”
`associated with “232,” and so on, and “-1” associated with “229,”
`“-2” associated with “228,” and so on.
`Id. at 13:50–58.
`
`Traders open long positions in a tradeable object by agreeing to buy a
`quantity of units of the tradeable object or open short positions by agreeing
`to sell a quantity of units of the tradeable object. Pet. 7. A trader closes
`either position by buying or selling the same quantity of units as they
`currently own for the long position or are obligated to sell for a short
`position; thus, traders either make a profit, suffer a loss, or break even. Id.
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–22. Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
`Claim 1 recites a method, and claim 12 recites a computer readable medium
`having program code recorded thereon. Claims 2–11 depend, directly or
`indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 13–22 depend, directly or indirectly,
`from claim 12. Claim 1 of the ’556 patent is illustrative of the challenged
`claims and is reproduced below:
`1. A method for displaying market information on a graphical
`user interface, the method comprising:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`receiving by a computing device a current highest bid price and
`a current lowest ask price for a tradeable object from an
`electronic exchange;
`identifying by the computer device a long or short position taken
`by a user with respect to the tradeable object, wherein the long
`position is associated with a quantity of the tradeable object that
`has been bought by the user at a price, and wherein the short
`position is associated with a quantity of the tradeable object that
`has been sold by the user at a price;
`computing by the computer device a plurality of values based on
`the long or short position, wherein each of the plurality of values
`represents a profit or loss if the long or short position is closed at
`a price level among a range of price levels for the tradeable
`object;
`displaying via the computing device the plurality of values along
`a value axis;
`displaying via the computing device a first indicator at a first
`location corresponding to a first value along the value axis,
`wherein the first indicator represents a particular price based on
`any of the following prices: current best bid, current best ask, and
`a last traded price, and wherein the first value represents a profit
`or loss incurred by the user if the long or short position is closed
`at a particular price; and
`moving the first indicator relative to the value axis to a second
`location corresponding to a second value along the value axis
`responsive to receipt of an update to the particular price, wherein
`the second value represents a profit or loss incurred by the user
`if the position is closed at the update to the particular price.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Requirements for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`review to persons or their privies who have been sued or charged with
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
`patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302.
`In compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), Petitioner certifies that it
`has been sued for infringement of the ’556 patent. Pet. 14–15; Paper 5, 2.
`
`
`1. “Method or Corresponding Apparatus for Performing Data
`Processing or Other Operations Used in the Practice, Administration or
`Management of a Financial Product or Service”
`The statute defines a “covered business method patent” as
`[a] patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for
`performing data processing or other operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`service . . . .
`AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). A covered business method
`patent can be broadly interpreted to encompass patents claiming activities
`that are financial in nature. Transitional Program for Covered Business
`Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012); Blue
`Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338–41 (Fed. Cir. 1331)
`(determining that a patent was a covered business method patent because it
`claimed activities that are financial in nature); Unwired Planet, LLC v.
`Google, Inc., 841 F.3d 1376, 1380 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “we
`endorsed the ‘financial in nature’ portion of the standard as consistent with
`the statutory definition of ‘covered business method patent’ in Blue
`Calypso”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1324–
`25 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the statute on its face covers a wide range of finance-
`related activities”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business
`method to be eligible for review. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (Response to
`Comment 8). We take claim 1 as representative.
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’556 patent is a covered business method
`patent because it claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing
`data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or
`management of a financial product or service. Pet. 15–19; Pet. Reply 21–23.
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 is directed to a financial activity because it
`recites a method that facilitates financial trades in an electronic market, as
`indicated by certain financial claim elements. Pet. 17. Those claim
`elements include: bid prices, ask prices, last trade prices, and calculating
`monetary profits or losses. Id. Further, Petitioner contends that the claims
`of the ’566 patent are directed to performing “data processing or other
`operations,” as required by the statute. Pet. Reply 21–23.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that the
`claims of the ’556 patent “include financial terms,” but disputes that the
`claims perform data processing or other operations, as required by the
`statute. PO Resp. 32–36. First, Patent Owner argues that “data processing”
`should be interpreted according to the definition of “data processing” found
`in the glossary for class 705 of the United States Patent Classification
`System, which is “[a] systematic operation on data in accordance with a set
`of rules which results in a significant change in the data.” Id. at 32–33
`(quoting Ex. 2121, 4 (emphasis original)). Patent Owner argues that the
`claims of the ’556 patent are not directed to data processing under this
`definition because the claims are concerned with displaying information in a
`specific manner and not concerned with processing the information that is
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`displayed. PO Resp. 33. With regards to “other operations,” Patent Owner
`asserts that the claimed invention is not directed to a business method. Id. at
`33–34. According to Patent Owner, the legislative history “makes clear that
`improvements to software tools or GUIs, even if used for trading or other
`financial activities, were intended to be outside the scope of CBM review.”
`Id. at 34 (quoting Ex. 1008, 7, 12, 157, Cong. Rec. S5428 (daily ed. Sept. 8,
`2011) (statements of Sens. Schumer and Durbin)).
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the
`legislative history are not persuasive. Although the legislative history
`includes certain statements that certain novel software tools and graphical
`user interfaces that are used by the electronic trading industry worker are not
`the target of § 18 of the AIA (see PO Resp. 34–36 (reproducing statements
`by Senator Durbin and Schumer)), the language of the AIA, as passed, does
`not include an exemption for user interfaces for commodities from covered
`business method patent review. Indeed, “the legislative debate concerning
`the scope of a CBM review includes statements from more than a single
`senator. It includes inconsistent views . . . .” Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at
`1381. For example, in contrast to the statements quoted by Patent Owner,
`the legislative history also indicates that “selling and trading financial
`instruments and other securities” is intended to be in the scope of covered
`business method patent review. Ex. 1008, 31 (157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily
`ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statements of Sen. Schumer). “[T]he legislative history
`cannot supplant the statutory definition actually adopted . . . . The
`authoritative statement of the Board’s authority to conduct a CBM review is
`the text of the statute.” Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1381. Each claimed
`invention has to be evaluated individually to determine if it is eligible for a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`covered business method patent review. A determination of whether a
`patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review under the
`statute is made on a case-by-case basis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`Turning to the ’556 patent, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the
`’556 patent is a covered business method patent. According to the
`specification of the ’556 patent, “the invention relates to electronic trading”
`(id. at 1:7) and, in particular, to displaying information for a trader to
`analyze when making a trade (id. at 2:18–33). The information relates to
`tradable objects, which are financial products, such as stocks, options,
`bonds, futures, currency, etc. Id. at 4:32–38. The ’556 patent discloses that
`the invention involves processing the information for display—“[t]he traders
`receive the data feed, in one form or another, and their computers process
`the information.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–22; see also id. at 2:59–62 (“FIG. 4
`illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for generating a derivative
`of price axis and displaying . . . .”).
`The disclosed invention is reflected in claim 1 of the ’556 patent,
`which is directed to “[a] method for displaying market information on a
`graphical user interface.” Ex. 1001, 15:21–22. The claimed method recites
`steps of: receiving financial data from an electronic exchange; identifying a
`long or short position taken by a user with respect to a tradeable object;
`computing a plurality of values based on the long or short position, wherein
`the values represent a profit or loss if the long or short position closed at
`different price levels; and displaying the plurality of values along a value
`axis. Id. at 15:23–40. The claimed method also recites steps of displaying a
`first indicator at a first location corresponding to a first value and moving the
`first indicator to a second location corresponding to a second value in
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`response to receiving an update. Id. at 15:41–54. The first indicator
`represents a particular price based upon the price of the current best bid,
`current best ask, or a last traded price. Id. at 15:43–45.
`Electronic trading is a financial service or activity. Tradable objects
`are financial products. A method of computing and displaying financial
`information for a tradable object on a graphical user interface for use in
`electronic trading is a method for performing data processing or other
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`product or service. We, thus, are persuaded by Petitioner that the ’556
`patent is a covered business method patent. See Pet. 15–19; Pet. Reply 21–
`23.
`Patent Owner argues that the statute requires that the “data
`
`processing” cause a significant change in the data, and that data processing
`that merely displays the data, like the data processing disclosed in the ’556
`patent, is not significant. PO Resp. 32–33. Patent Owner’s argument is
`based upon the assumption that “data processing” in the statute is interpreted
`according to the definition of “data processing” found in the glossary for
`class 705 of the United States Patent Classification System. See Pet. 33.
`Patent Owner, however, does not sufficiently explain why this definition is
`controlling, as opposed to the plain meaning of “data processing.” Pfizer,
`Inc. v. Lee, 811 F.3d 466, 471 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 22–23
`(providing other definitions of “data processing”). We, thus, are not
`persuaded that “data processing” as recited by the statute precludes data
`processing for the purpose of displaying the data. As pointed out above, the
`’556 patent, itself, discloses that a data feed of market information received
`from an electronic exchange is processed to compute and display an axis of
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`derivative price information. Ex. 1001, 1:20–22, 2:59–62. We, thus, are not
`persuaded that the ’556 patent does not claim “performing data processing . .
`. used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product
`or service.”
`In any event, the statute does not limit covered business method
`patents to only those that claim methods for performing data processing used
`in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`service. It includes methods for performing “other operations” used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`Claim 1’s method of displaying market information on a graphical user
`interface is an operation used in the practice, administration, or management
`of a financial product or service. It is a method reciting an operation used in
`the practice, administration, or management of the financial service of
`trading a financial product.
` We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the ’556 patent is a covered business method patent.
`
`
`2. Technological Invention Exception
`Even if a patent includes claims that would otherwise be eligible for
`treatment as a covered business method, review of the patent is precluded if
`the claims cover only “technological invention[s],” as defined by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.301(b). The definition of “covered business method patent” in
`§ 18(d)(1) of the AIA does not include patents for “technological
`inventions.”
`To determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we
`consider “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole [1] recites a
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [2]
`solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.301(b). Both prongs must be satisfied in order for the patent to be
`excluded as a technological invention. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1326–27.
`The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not
`render a patent a “technological invention”:
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer
`hardware, communication or computer networks, software,
`memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, display
`devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM
`or point of sale device.
`(b) 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.
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763–64.
`Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’556 patent do not recite a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and do
`not solve a technical problem using a technical solution. Pet. 19–23.
`Petitioner argues that the claims of the ’556 patent “make scant mention of
`any technology at all, much less novel and unobvious technology.” Id. at 20.
`Petitioner also argues that the ’556 patent solves the problem of traders
`needing to “‘make quick mental calculations, using charting software, or
`look to other sources to provide additional insight beyond what is normally
`provided by an exchange or a typical trading screen,’” which is not a
`technical problem. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–30). Petitioner asserts that
`“simply adding another well-known item of information . . . to a prior art
`trading screen” is not a technical solution. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner disputes that the claims of the ’556 patent do not recite
`a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and do
`not solve a technical problem using a technical solution. PO Resp. 36–42.
`According to Patent Owner, the ’556 patent claims a technological feature
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art because it claims a
`“combination of computing of a plurality of values based on position and
`representing a profit or loss if the position is closed at the price level,
`displaying the plurality of values along a value axis, and displaying and
`moving indicators at locations along the value axis,” that is different from
`prior art GUIs. Id. at 37. In addition, Patent Owner argues that the ’556
`patent solves a technical problem using a technical solution because the
`problem of not providing certain market information, such as a price
`derivative, on a display is a technical problem with a GUI and not a business
`problem. Id. at 38–41.
`Claim 1 of the ’556 patent recites “a method for displaying market
`information on a graphical user interface.” Ex. 1001, 15:23. The first step
`of the method is to receive information via a computer for a tradeable object
`from an electronic exchange. Id. at 15:24–26. The ’556 patent discloses
`that known electronic exchanges provide data feeds to connected traders’
`computers. See id. at 1:13–30, 4:16–21. The data feeds typically include
`information such as best bid quantity and price; best ask quantity and price;
`last traded quantity; the previous day’s settlement price; the open price; and
`the closed price. Id. at 1:30–43. The ’556 patent discloses that trading
`screens or GUIs that display the information from the data feed are known.
`Id. at 1:45–2:17; Figs. 1–2. In particular, the ’556 patent discloses that one
`known trading screen or GUI displays market information along a value axis
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`having a range of price levels. Id. at 2:5–17; Fig. 2. Claim 1 requires a step
`of identifying via a computer a long or short position taken by a user with
`respect to the tradeable object and further defines the long or short position.
`Id. at 15:27–33. The ’556 patent discloses that a user chooses a particular
`price derivative to display by inputting information through a GUI or
`command-line entry. See id. at 8:37–9:6; Fig. 5; see also Pet. 22 (citing Ex.
`1005, 6:56–57, Fig. 19). The ’556 patent discloses that inputting devices
`such as a keyboard or mouse are conventional. Ex. 1001, 6:26–31. In
`addition, the ’556 patent states:
`It is further understood that the programs, processes, method and
`apparatus described herein are not related or limited to any
`particular type of computer or network apparatus (hardware or
`software) unless indicated otherwise. Various types of general
`purpose or specialized computer apparatus or computing device
`may be used with or perform operations in accordance with the
`teachings described here.
`Ex. 1001, 14:63–15:2. The ’556 patent, itself, indicates that the
`technological features recited by claim 1 are known technologies.
`We determine that at least claim 1 of the ’556 patent does not recite a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, as
`required by the first prong of the test to determine whether a patent is for a
`technological invention. Notwithstanding that both prongs must be satisfied
`in order for a patent to be excluded as a technological invention, we analyze
`whether the ’556 patent satisfies the second prong—whether it solves a
`technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`The ’556 patent discloses that:
`[i]n addition to viewing traditional-style trading screens, traders
`are often interested in analyzing other pieces of highly relevant
`information that are not normally provided in an electronic
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`exchange’s data feed nor displayed by a trading screen. For
`instance, they might make quick mental calculations, use
`charting software, or look to other sources to provide additional
`insight beyond what is normally provided by an exchange or a
`typical trading screen. Some even trade directly off this
`information. Regardless of what source or sources a trader might
`use, it may be too difficult for the trader to quickly assimilate this
`highly relevant information from diverse and often unrelated
`sources or even effectively process all of the information to make
`informed trades.
`Ex. 1001, 2:18– 30. The ’556 patent discloses that such information can be
`profit and loss information. Id. at 13:50–14:3.
`
`As can be seen from the above, the problem disclosed in the ’556
`patent is that traders need additional information on a trading screen to
`effectively analyze the market. As Petitioner points out, this is not a
`technical problem but a business problem. See Pet. 19, 22–23.
`Patent Owner disputes that the problem is a business problem and
`argues that the problem is a technical one. PO Resp. 38–40. Patent Owner
`argues that the problem solved by the ’556 patent is that “highly relevant
`information is not accessible or understandable in an efficient manner” and
`asserts that the ’556 patent solves this problem by providing a GUI that
`“more effectively provid[es] highly relevant information to a user in a way
`that allows them to understand and effectively process it.” Id. at 40. Patent
`Owner asserts that “[t]here can be no dispute that GUIs are technological in
`nature.” Id. at 37.
`Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive. The inaccessibility or
`understandability of information to a trader is not a technical problem. A
`GUI that displays market information is not a technical solution to a
`technical problem. GUIs that display market information in similar
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`arrangements were known. See Ex. 1001, 2:5–17; Fig. 2 (reproduced
`above). Mere recitation of known technologies and recitations of the use of
`known prior art technology to accomplish a process or method, even if that
`process or method is novel and non-obvious, do not render a patent a
`technological invention. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763–64. Additionally, we note
`that although independent claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 1, claim
`12 does not recite a GUI.
`Patent Owner proffers the testimony of Eric Gould-Bear and Dan
`Olsen to show that GUIs are technology and the claimed invention is a
`technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex.
`2168 ¶¶ 25–28, Ex. 2174 ¶¶ 6–27, testimony of Eric Gould-Bear and Dan
`Olsen, respectively). The testimony of Mr. Gould-Bear and Dr. Olsen is
`unpersuasive because, although their testimony addresses related patents, it
`does not specifically address the claimed invention of the ’556 patent. For
`example, Mr. Gould-Bear’s testimony is directed to U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,766,304, 7,767,411, and 6,772,132. See Ex. 2168 ¶ 25 (addressing the
`inventiveness of “TT Patents”), ¶ 1 (defining “TT Patents” as U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,766,304; 7,767,411; 6,772,132). Likewise, Dr. Olsen’s testimony is
`related to U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 and not the claimed invention of the
`’556 patent. See Ex. 2174 ¶ 6. The claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304,
`7,767,411, and 6,772,132 recite features not recited by the claims of the ’556
`patent. See, e.g., Ex. 3006, 12:2–27 (claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`reciting, for example, static display of prices).
`We determine that at least claim 1 of the ’556 patent does not recite a
`technical solution to a technical problem, as required by the second prong of
`the test to determine whether a patent is for a technological invention. As
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`the ’556 patent is a covered business method patent and is not precluded for
`being a technological invention, the ’556 patent is eligible for covered
`business method patent review.
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In a covered business method patent review, the Board interprets
`claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard). Under that standard, and absent any special
`definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
