PTAB

CBM2016-00054

Ibg LLC v. Trading Technologies Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Graphical User Interface for Electronic Trading
  • Brief Description: The ’768 patent describes a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic trading of commodities. The system features a display with bid and ask information arranged along a static price axis, which allows a trader to place orders with a single action, such as a mouse click, on the display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 - Claims 1-23 are directed to an abstract idea.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weiss (a 1993 publication describing manual trading practices) is cited to demonstrate the conventionality of the claimed steps.
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the claims are ineligible for patenting under the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
    • Abstract Idea (Alice Step 1): The claims were asserted to be directed to the abstract idea of placing an order based on observed market information. Petitioner contended that the claimed steps—such as plotting bids and asks along a price axis—mirror longstanding manual processes used by traders with pen and paper, as shown in the Weiss reference.
    • No Inventive Concept (Alice Step 2): Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept, merely instructing the implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer. The additional limitations were described as insignificant post-solution activities, such as displaying data and sending an order to an exchange. The patent itself admits its methods can be implemented on any existing computer, and the claimed GUI features were argued to be well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time.

Ground 2: Obviousness over TSE and Belden - Claims 1-13, 15, 16, 18, and 21-23 are obvious over TSE in view of Belden.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TSE (a 1998 Tokyo Stock Exchange operational guide) and Belden (WO 90/11571).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that TSE, a manual for a "Futures/Option Purchase System," teaches nearly all limitations of the independent claims. TSE disclosed a GUI for electronic trading that dynamically displayed bids, asks, and order quantities along a static price axis in a "Board Screen." However, TSE's order entry required a double-click to open a new window, followed by clicking a "send" button. Belden was introduced to supply the missing limitation: single-action order entry. Belden described an electronic trading system where a trader could click on an icon representing another trader's bid or offer to execute a trade directly.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Belden’s single-action order entry with TSE’s GUI to achieve the predictable results of increased trading speed and reduced operator error. Belden explicitly taught its system was "applicable to all markets" and provided benefits in the "speed with which he can take or liquidate positions," providing a clear motivation to incorporate its efficiency-enhancing features into a system like TSE’s.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating the known GUI technique of single-action clicking from Belden into the trading interface of TSE, as it involved combining existing functionalities to achieve a well-understood goal in user interface design.

Ground 3: Obviousness over TSE, Belden, and Cooper - Claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over TSE and Belden in view of Cooper.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TSE, Belden, and Cooper (a 1995 book titled "About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design").
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground built upon the TSE and Belden combination to address dependent claims requiring order entry locations to be "within a cell" or part of a "grid."
    • Prior Art Mapping: The combination of TSE and Belden was argued to teach the base invention, as in Ground 2. Cooper was introduced to teach the concept of a "cell" and a "grid" in a GUI. Cooper disclosed well-known GUI concepts, including spreadsheet applications that display a grid of cells and drawing programs that use an invisible grid to align objects. Petitioner argued that TSE’s display, which showed cursors in distinct rectangular regions, already suggested a grid-like layout.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to apply Cooper's fundamental grid and cell concepts to the TSE/Belden trading interface. Using a grid structure is a standard method for organizing and aligning numerical data, and applying it to the TSE display would be an obvious design choice to yield the predictable result of a more organized and readable interface.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "single action": Petitioner argued this term is defined by the patent's specification as "[A]ny 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 construction was central to mapping Belden’s click-to-trade functionality onto the claims.
  • "A computer readable medium having program code recorded thereon": Petitioner argued for a broad construction of this term under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. It contended the term is not limited to non-transitory media and could encompass a transitory, propagating signal, which is not patent-eligible subject matter. This position formed an alternative basis for the §101 challenge against claim 23.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Not a "Technological Invention": A central theme of the petition was that the ’768 patent does not solve a technical problem with a technical solution, but rather addresses a business problem (the desire to trade faster). Petitioner argued that the claimed invention merely rearranges known data on a GUI using conventional computer components. This contention was critical for establishing that the patent qualified as a "covered business method" patent and for supporting the argument under Alice Step 2 that the claims lack an inventive concept rooted in computer technology.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’768 patent as unpatentable.