PTAB

CBM2015-00179

Ibg LLC v. Trading Technologies Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: User Interface for an Electronic Trading System
  • Brief Description: The ’056 patent discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic trading. The system displays bid and offer information along a static price axis, allowing a trader to view market depth and submit trade orders, for example by clicking on a location corresponding to a desired price.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Ineligibility under §101 - Claims 1-15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101

  • Core Argument: Petitioner argued that claims 1-15 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under the two-step framework from Alice Corp.
    • Step 1 (Abstract Idea): The claims were directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers to assist a trader in making an order. Petitioner asserted this is a fundamental economic practice, analogous to hedging, and can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The claims simply automate a well-understood human activity.
    • Step 2 (Inventive Concept): The claims allegedly lacked an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The additional limitations—such as receiving market data, displaying it on a generic computer, receiving user input, and sending an order to an exchange—were described as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Petitioner contended that merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not confer patent eligibility.

Ground 2: Obviousness over TSE, Togher, Schott, and Cooper - Claims 1-15 are obvious over TSE in view of Togher, Schott, and Cooper

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TSE (a 1998 Tokyo Stock Exchange user guide), Togher (Patent 5,375,055), Schott (Patent 5,619,631), and Cooper (a 1995 user interface design treatise).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that TSE, an operator’s guide for an electronic trading system, disclosed displaying bid and offer information with alphanumeric indicators along a vertical price axis and allowed users to enter orders by double-clicking on the display. To address the "default quantity" limitation, Petitioner cited Togher, which taught a trading system where a user could pre-set a "Normal Trade Size" to be used for subsequent orders. For claims requiring graphical indicators, Petitioner relied on Schott, which taught using graphical elements like bar graphs to represent data, and Cooper, a treatise that taught using a user's last-entered value as a default to improve interface efficiency.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create a more efficient and user-friendly trading interface. Integrating Togher's pre-set default quantity into TSE's system would predictably reduce the time and number of user actions required to place an order, a critical advantage in trading. Similarly, replacing TSE's alphanumeric indicators with Schott's graphical ones would allow for faster comprehension of market data.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known and established GUI design principles to a known electronic trading system, which would have yielded the predictable result of an improved, faster, and more intuitive user interface.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Silverman, Togher, Cooper, and Hogan - Claims 1-15 are obvious over Silverman in view of Togher, Cooper, and Hogan

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Silverman (Patent 5,136,501), Togher (Patent 5,375,055), Cooper (a 1995 user interface design treatise), and Hogan (Patent 5,414,809).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Silverman disclosed an electronic trading system that graphically displayed bid and offer information along a price axis. While Silverman showed these displays as static diagrams, Petitioner asserted it would have been obvious to implement them on a computer screen. Togher and Cooper were cited for the same teachings on default quantities as in Ground 2. Hogan was introduced to teach displaying graphical indicators (e.g., bar graphs) and allowing a user to specify a value by directly manipulating a graphical object on an axis, such as by dragging the end of a bar.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Silverman’s trading display with Togher’s default quantity feature to enhance speed and reduce errors. Further, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Hogan's teachings on direct graphical manipulation to make Silverman's interface more interactive and intuitive, allowing users to enter orders more quickly than by keyboard entry. This represents a simple application of known GUI techniques to improve a known system.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known interface elements would predictably result in a more efficient and user-friendly trading system, as each element was known to improve usability in its respective context.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms that were central to its unpatentability arguments.

  • price axis: Argued for the construction "a reference line for plotting prices, including labeled, unlabeled, visible and invisible reference lines." This broad construction was intended to ensure prior art like Silverman, which displayed data along an axis without explicit price labels, would meet the limitation.
  • default quantity: Argued for its plain and ordinary meaning of "a preset value to be used if the user does not specify another value," which could include, but is not limited to, a user's last-entered value. This construction was crucial for applying the teachings of both Togher (preset values) and Cooper (last-entered values).
  • indicators, icons and tokens: Argued these terms are used interchangeably in the patent to mean any "symbol such as an alphanumeric characters or a graphic representation of an item." This interpretation allows prior art that uses different terminology for visual elements to satisfy the claim limitations.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner argued that the Board should not deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) based on prior examinations of the ’056 patent.

  • The petition contended that determinations made during the original ex parte prosecution were not germane to a Covered Business Method (CBM) review, which involves a different standard.
  • Petitioner noted it was not a party to a prior CBM proceeding on the same patent (CBM2014-00131), which was terminated due to settlement, and thus it had not had an opportunity to be heard.
  • Finally, Petitioner asserted a strong public interest in reaching a final determination on the patent’s validity, given that the Patent Owner had asserted it against numerous defendants.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 7,533,056 as unpatentable.