PTAB

CBM2016-00031

TradeStation Group, Inc. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Graphical User Interface for Electronic Trading
  • Brief Description: The ’996 patent describes a method and system for electronic trading featuring a graphical user interface (GUI). The GUI displays market data, including bid and ask quantities, arranged vertically along a static price axis. The core concept is to allow a trader to view market depth and execute trades rapidly, often with a single user action, by interacting directly with the price and quantity display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are Patent-Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. §101

  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of making market trades based on displayed market information—a fundamental economic practice that long predates computers. The petition contended that this practice could be, and was, performed manually using pen and paper, as evidenced by historical specialist books that plotted bids and asks along a vertical price axis.
    • Inventive Concept: Petitioner asserted the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims merely recite implementing the abstract trading concept on a generic computer using conventional components (GUI, mouse) and well-understood functions (displaying data, receiving input). The "static price axis" was argued to be a non-inventive, obvious design choice for organizing data, not a technological improvement. The ordered combination of elements was said to add nothing beyond the routine and conventional application of the abstract idea.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are Outside Statutory Classes of Patentable Subject Matter

  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relies on a legal argument regarding claim construction rather than prior art. Petitioner argued that the preamble term "computer readable medium" is not limited to non-transitory media.
    • Legal Argument: Based on the proposed claim construction, Petitioner contended that the claims encompass transitory, propagating signals. Such signals are not considered patentable subject matter under any of the four statutory categories in §101, as established in precedent like In re Nuijten. Therefore, because the claims read on non-statutory subject matter, they are invalid.

Ground 3: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Silverman in view of Gutterman and Togher

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Silverman (Patent 5,077,665), Gutterman (Patent 5,297,031), and Togher (Patent 5,375,055).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of Silverman and Gutterman teaches nearly all limitations of claim 1. Silverman was argued to disclose a computerized trading exchange that dynamically displays bid and offer information as graphical icons along a static price axis, including an indicator of the inside market. Gutterman was said to disclose a similar graphical display that functions as an interactive GUI, where orders are displayed as interactive icons along a static price axis that can be selected to send an order electronically. Togher was cited for teaching the remaining features: the ability to designate a default quantity for orders and the use of single-action ordering to execute trades.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to achieve the known goal of increasing the speed and efficiency of electronic trading. All three references are in the same field. A POSITA would combine Gutterman's interactive GUI features with Silverman's inside market display to improve usability and trading speed. Adding Togher's default quantity and single-action capabilities was presented as an obvious modification to further enhance speed and reduce errors, a well-known objective in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining these known elements from the electronic trading field would predictably result in a more efficient and user-friendly trading interface.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Computer Readable Medium": Petitioner proposed that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of "medium" is "an intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on." This construction was argued to be critical for Ground 2, as it would cause the claims to read on non-statutory transitory signals.
  • "Single Action": Petitioner noted the specification defines this term as "any action by a user within a short period of time, whether comprising one or more clicks of a mouse button or other input device." This definition was used to argue that prior art teaching single-click order entry meets this limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • The petition was filed as a Covered Business Method (CBM) review, which contains a "technological invention" exception. Petitioner made extensive arguments, analogous to those against discretionary denial, that the ’996 patent does not qualify for this exception.
  • Petitioner argued the patent is not directed to a technological invention because its purported novelty lies in the arrangement of information to solve a business problem (i.e., reducing the time to place a trade), not a problem rooted in computer technology. The claims were said to use only generic, off-the-shelf computer components to automate a longstanding human financial activity, rather than providing a technical solution to a technical problem.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’996 patent as unpatentable.