BGC Partners, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2020002769 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/969,580 08/18/2013 Howard W. Lutnick 04-1108WOUS-C1 4923
63710 7590 12/17/2020
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
BARTLEY, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
lkorovich@cantor.com
mcatarino@cgolaw.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HOWARD W. LUTNICK,
JOSEPH NOVIELLO, MICHAEL SWEETING,
JAMES P. STEDMAN, WILLIAM P. GILL,
ATUL BHATLA, DANIEL L. ECCLESTON,
and JAMES L. DAVIES
____________

Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27–42.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to user interfaces for electronic trading.
Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 27 and 35 are independent. Claim 27, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
27. An apparatus comprising:
a network interface;
a display device;
an input device;
at least one processor to:
render, on the display device, a graphical user interface
comprising a matrix, each row of the matrix having a plurality
of bid fields and a plurality of ask fields associated with a
financial instrument;
move a row containing a highest bid price or lowest ask
price for the financial instrument to a particular area of the
graphical user interface;
render a highlighted box around the particular area;

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies BGC PARTNERS, INC. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–26 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

3
detect, via the input device, a selection of an unpopulated
bid field or ask field in a given row within the highlighted box
around the particular area; and
in response to the selection, transmit, via the network
interface, an order for a respective financial instrument with
data from a populated bid field or ask field such that the
transmitted order is on an opposite side of a trade associated
with the selected, unpopulated bid field or ask field.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 7–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. Final Act. 10–12.
The Examiner rejects claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final
Act. 12.
The Examiner rejects claims 27–42 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kemp,3 Kemp(A),4,5 and Brumfield.6 Final
Act. 13–21.

3 Kemp, II et al., US 2002/0059129 A1 (pub. May 16, 2002) (“Kemp”).
4 Kemp, II et al., US 2006/0259382 A1 (pub. Nov. 16, 2006) (“Kemp(A)”).
5 The Final Office Action contains a typographical error in Kemp(A)’s
publication number. See Final Act. 14 (referring to “Pub. No.
US 2006/0258382”). The error is corrected in the Examiner’s Answer.
Ans. 19.
6 Brumfield et al., US 2004/0117292 A1 (pub. June 17, 2004) (“Brumfield”).
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

4
OPINION
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or [a] new and useful
improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court
has long interpreted § 101 to “contain[] an important implicit exception:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012) “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The first
step in this analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed
to one of those patent-ineligible concepts,” e.g., to an abstract idea. Id.
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas include certain methods of
organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices or
commercial interactions (id. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
2014)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972)). If it is determined that the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept, the second step of the analysis requires consideration of the
elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to
determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

5
of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). “A claim that recites an abstract idea
must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. at 221
(alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). In other words, the
claims must contain an “inventive concept,” or some element or combination
of elements “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id.
at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic
computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 221.
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”).7 “All
USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected
to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Consistent with that guidance,8 we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of

7 In October 2019, in response to received public comments, the PTO issued
a further memorandum clarifying the Revised Guidance. USPTO
Memorandum, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (Oct. 17,
2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (“October 2019 Update”).
8 Our reviewing court has explained that the Revised Guidance “cannot
modify or supplant the Supreme Court’s law regarding patent eligibility, or
[our reviewing court’s] interpretation and application thereof.” In re Rudy,
956 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Our decision is based upon
applicable statutory authority and precedent of the United States Supreme
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

6
organizing human activity such as fundamental economic
practices, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong 1”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020)) (“Step 2A, Prong 2”).9
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then (under
“Step 2B”) look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determines that the claims recite certain methods of
organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance as abstract
ideas, in particular fundamental economic practices or commercial
interactions. Final Act. 8. The Examiner further determines that the recited
abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the
additionally recited “computer hardware is recited at a high-level of

Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and applies the analytical
framework set forth in the Revised Guidance in a manner consistent with
authority and precedent.
9 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55
(Section III.A.2).
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

7
generality . . . such that it amounts [to] no more than mere instructions to
apply the exception using a generic computer component.” Id. at 9. Finally,
the Examiner determines that the claims do not contain an inventive concept
or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. Id. The Examiner finds that the claimed
invention is “focused on a trader interface and improving trading, not
improving computer or display technology.” Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that the claims recite additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 7–8. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the claims are “drawn to improved user interfaces”
that “permit the computer to work more efficiently by permitting faster order
entry via the claimed graphical user interface (GUI) features” and
“improve[] user navigation by allowing a user to enter a trade with the best
bid/offer by clicking on a particular part of the GUI.” Id. at 8, 11. Appellant
also argues that the claimed invention is “implemented using a particular
machine.” Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted). Finally, Appellant argues that the
Examiner fails to properly consider whether the claims include “a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept is present.” Id. at 13 (citing PTO’s Berkheimer
Memorandum10).

10 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.)” (Apr. 19, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
memo-berkheimer-20180419.pdf.
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

8
Step 2A, Prong 1
We agree with the Examiner that the claims recite a judicial
exception, i.e., an abstract idea. See Final Act. 7–8. Specifically, we agree
that the claims recite a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial
interaction, which are certain methods of organizing human activity
identified in the Revised Guidance as abstract ideas, in the form of
transmitting a trade order (for, e.g., stocks, bonds, currency, futures, options,
etc.). See Spec. ¶ 3.
For example, independent claim 27 recites, “in response to the
selection, transmit[ting], via the network interface, an order for a respective
financial instrument with data from a populated bid field or ask field such
that the transmitted order is on an opposite side of a trade associated with the
selected, unpopulated bid field or ask field.” This limitation (as does the
corresponding limitation in independent claim 35) relates to transmitting a
trade order, which is a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial
interaction.
Accordingly, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human
activity as identified in the Revised Guidance as abstract ideas, and, thus, a
judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Because the claims recite a judicial exception, we next look to
whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. Claim limitations that indicate integration into a practical application
include additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id.
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

9
at 55. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to” the
judicial exception. Id. at 51.
We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations recited in
the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical
application. See Final Act. 9. For example, claim 27 additionally recites
“render[ing], on the display device, a graphical user interface” and
“detect[ing], via the input device, a selection of an unpopulated bid field or
ask field in a given row within the highlighted box around the particular
area.” These limitations of “render[ing] . . . a graphical user interface” and
“detect[ing] . . . a selection” input are recited at a high level of generality
(i.e., as general steps of displaying information and collecting input
information for the trade order) and amount to insignificant pre-solution
activity. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(g).
We further agree with the Examiner that the claims merely recite
generic computer components that similarly fail to integrate the recited
judicial exception into a practical application. See Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 11.
For example, claim 27 additionally recites a “network interface,” “display
device,” “input device,” and a “processor” that performs all of the recited
steps. As the Examiner points out, these limitations are recited at a high
level of generality, i.e., as generic components performing generic computer
functions of communication, display, and computer processing. See Final
Act. 9. The claims merely apply the judicial exception using generic
computer components and indicate a field of use or technological
environment (i.e., computer software) for placing trade orders. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(f), (h).
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

10
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is “implemented using a
particular machine.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted) (citing11 Spec. ¶¶ 5,
103, 104, 108, 109); see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(b). We disagree that the claims recite a particular machine
because, as discussed above, the recited “network interface,” “display
device,” “input device,” and “processor” are generic computer components
performing generic computer functions. To the extent that Appellant argues
that the recited “graphical user interface” and its features tie the claimed
invention to a particular machine, we disagree that a generic computer or
generic computer components (e.g., display, processor) are particular
machines by virtue of rendering a graphical user interface with a particular
format. The claims merely implement the judicial exception with general
purpose computer components, not a particular machine. See Ultramercial,
772 F.3d at 716–17 (determining that claims tied to a general purpose
computer are not tied to a particular machine). Likewise, the Specification
provides that “the trading application discussed herein may be any suitable[]
software, hardware, or both configured to implement the features of the
invention.” Spec. ¶ 117.
Appellant further argues that the claims are “drawn to improved user
interfaces” that “permit the computer to work more efficiently by permitting
faster order entry via the claimed graphical user interface (GUI) features.”
Appeal Br. 8, 11. Specifically, Appellant argues that the claimed graphical
user interface “help[s] to improve computer performance and functioning by

11 In the Appeal Brief, Appellant cites published application
US 2013/0339215 A1. We have adapted Appellant’s citations to reflect the
paragraph numbering of the originally filed Specification.
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

11
controlling activity over the network and controlling computer workload,
including computer resources such as memory resources, processor
resources, and network resources such as network bandwidth.” Id. at 8
(emphasis omitted). Appellant cites cases involving graphical user
interfaces in which our reviewing court found the claims to be patent-
eligible. Id. at 10–11 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Trading Techs. Int’l,
Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential)).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner that the claims at issue here do not recite a technological
improvement in addition to the judicial exception. See Ans. 8–11.
Appellant’s citations do not persuade us otherwise.
In Core Wireless, for example, the Federal Circuit found that the
claims recited an improved user interface that reduced the steps needed for a
user to navigate toward the desired data/functionality, and were thus
“directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers.” Core
Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363; see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that the claims were directed to an
improvement in computer functionality because the claimed self-referential
table “improve[d] the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory”).
Similarly, in Trading Technologies, the Federal Circuit concluded that
the user interface at issue there was “directed to a specific improvement to
the way computers operate” by “impart[ing] a specific functionality to a
trading system ‘directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a
problem in the software arts.’” Trading Techs., 675 F. App’x at 1006
(quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336, 1339). The Federal Circuit additionally
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

12
agreed with the district court’s ruling that the claims recited an inventive
concept under Alice Step 2. Id. at 1004–05.
Here, Appellant provides no evidence or explanation as to how a
graphical user interface that “permit[s] faster order entry” and “improves
user navigation by allowing a user to enter a trade with the best bid/offer by
clicking on a particular part of the GUI” results in improved efficiency,
performance, or functioning of a computer by “controlling activity over the
network and controlling computer workload,” or otherwise improves the
functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field. Appeal
Br. 8. Although the claimed invention may facilitate user navigation by
allowing the user to “click[] on a particular part of the GUI” to enter a trade
order, resulting in faster order entry (id. at 8, 11), we agree with the
Examiner that faster order entry by the user improves trading rather than
computer technology, and is thus a business solution, not a technical
solution. See Ans. 7–8, 10; Final Act. 4; Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (rejecting the argument that the
claimed graphical user interface for trading “improve[d] computer
functionality by improving on the intuitiveness and efficiency of prior GUI
tools”); see also id. at 1091 (finding that improvements in “speed, accuracy,
and usability compared to prior art GUI tools” are “not technological”
improvements and are “focused on improving the trader, not the functioning
of the computer” in analysis of eligibility for covered business method
review). The claims at issue here “do not require an arguably inventive set
of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that
would generate new data” or “invoke any assertedly inventive
programming.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

13
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the claims do not reflect an improvement in
computer functionality or to any other technology or technical field. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Even in combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See Final
Act. 9.
Step 2B
Turning to Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, we determine that there
are no specific limitations beyond the judicial exception, i.e., the abstract
idea, that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
For example, claim 27 additionally recites that the “graphical user
interface compris[es] a matrix, each row of the matrix having a plurality of
bid fields and a plurality of ask fields associated with a financial
instrument,” “mov[ing] a row containing a highest bid price or lowest ask
price for the financial instrument to a particular area of the graphical user
interface,” and “render[ing] a highlighted box around the particular area.”
These limitations of presenting market information, including the inside
market (see Spec. ¶ 20), on a graphical user interface simply append well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See,
e.g., Kemp Fig. 2 (matrix rows having a plurality of bid fields and a plurality
of ask fields); Kemp(A) ¶¶ 144, 151 (automatically recentering the inside
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

14
market); Brumfield ¶ 107, Fig. 11 (highlighted box around the inside
market).
Furthermore, the additionally recited “network interface,” “display
device,” “input device,” and “processor” are mere recitations of generic
computer components performing generic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 48 (generally
describing a “typical workstation” as including a processor, display, and
input device), 45–46 (listing various types of “communication links” to
“computer network[s]”). As indicated by the Examiner, the additional
elements, whether considered separately or as an ordered combination,
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using
generic computer components and do not provide an inventive concept to
transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Final
Act. 9–10; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24.
Reevaluating the extra-solution activity of “render[ing], on the display
device, a graphical user interface” and “detect[ing], via the input device, a
selection of an unpopulated bid field or ask field in a given row within the
highlighted box around the particular area” (see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 (stating that a conclusion under Step 2A that an additional
element is insignificant extra-solution activity should be reevaluated in
Step 2B)), we find nothing unconventional in these steps of displaying
information and collecting input information for the trade order.
Specifically, we are unpersuaded that “allowing a user to enter a trade . . . by
clicking on a particular part of the GUI” (Appeal Br. 8), such as “an
unpopulated bid field or ask field in a given row within the highlighted box
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

15
around the particular area,” amounts to significantly more than the abstract
idea. Otherwise put, simply specifying a location or element of the
graphical user interface where the user may click to place a trade order does
not provide an inventive concept sufficient to confer patent eligibility.
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to consider whether the
claims include “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are
not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is
indicative that an inventive concept is present,” under Step 2B of the
Revised Guidance. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues that the
Examiner’s rejection “merely provides conclusory statements and does not
comport with the Berkheimer Memo,” which clarifies that an examiner’s
conclusion that an element represents well-understood, routine, conventional
activity must be based upon a factual determination supported in writing. Id.
(italics added). Although the Examiner does not make an express finding as
to whether any specific claim element is well-understood, routine, and
conventional (see Ans. 14), we determine that there are no specific
limitations beyond the judicial exception, i.e., the abstract idea, that are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, as discussed above.
Appellant has not shown that the claims on appeal add any specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine,
and conventional in the field. Appellant also has not shown that the ordered
combination of claim elements is unconventional or amounts to significantly
more than the abstract idea to which the claims are otherwise directed.
Accordingly, considering the claim elements individually and as an ordered
combination, we agree with the Examiner that there are no meaningful claim
limitations that represent sufficiently inventive concepts to transform the
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

16
nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
See Final Act. 9–10.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Written Description)
The Examiner determines that claims 27–42 lack written description
support for “mov[ing] a row containing a highest bid price or lowest ask
price for the financial instrument to a particular area of the graphical user
interface,” as recited in independent claim 27 and similarly recited in
independent claim 35. Final Act. 10–12. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that the Specification contains no disclosure of “moving a row.” Id. at 11
(citing Spec. ¶ 20).
Appellant argues that the Specification “provides implicit and inherent
disclosure” of the claim limitation. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Spec.
¶¶ 20–21) (emphasis omitted). Appellant cites the Specification’s disclosure
that prices are dynamically displayed, prices change locations within the
user interface when the inside market changes due to changing market
conditions, and the inside market may be centered within the interface. Id.
According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the Specification’s disclosure to indicate that “best bids and ask
prices are constantly moving in and out of, for example, the ‘centered’
location in the interface as the prices change,” and that provides sufficient
support for “mov[ing] a row containing a highest bid price or lowest ask
price for the financial instrument to a particular area of the graphical user
interface.” Id. at 16 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

17
We agree with the Examiner that “mov[ing] a row” as claimed is not
adequately supported by the Specification. As the Examiner points out, the
Specification’s disclosure of prices changing locations within the user
interface does not necessarily indicate moving a row of the matrix performed
by the processor. See Ans. 16. For example, while the Specification
discloses that “[w]hen the inside market changes in response to changing
market conditions, at least one of the prices changes locations between the
bid price axis and the ask price axis” (Spec. ¶ 20), this describes movement
of a price between different axes, rather than movement of a row.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–42
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Indefiniteness)
The Examiner determines that the term “particular area” recited in
independent claims 27 and 35 is indefinite because “[a] particular area of an
interface could be any area on a screen.” Final Act. 12; Ans. 18. Appellant
argues that the term “particular area” is not indefinite. Appeal Br. 18.
We agree with Appellant. While the Examiner finds that “particular
area” is broad, claims are not indefinite on the basis of their breadth alone.
See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not
indefiniteness.”). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest “a
plurality of bid fields and a plurality of ask fields” as recited in independent
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

18
claims 27 and 35. Appeal Br. 19. For this limitation, the Examiner relies on
Figure 2 of Kemp (see Final Act. 16–17), which Appellant does not address.
We agree with the Examiner that Kemp teaches rows of a matrix having “a
plurality of bid fields and a plurality of ask fields,” as claimed, and that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate
this teaching into the combination of references for “clarity of breaking out
the prices for a quick visual determination of bid and ask offers.” Final
Act. 17; see Kemp Fig. 2 (showing rows of a matrix having “BidQty,”
“BidPrc,” “AskPrc,” and “AskQty” fields).
Appellant further argues that the cited references fail to teach or
suggest “mov[ing] a row . . . to a particular area of the graphical user
interface,” “render[ing] a highlighted box around the particular area,” and
“detect[ing], via the input device, a selection of an unpopulated bid field or
ask field in a given row within the highlighted box around the particular
area,” as recited in independent claims 27 and 35. Appeal Br. 19–20.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Brumfield “merely teaches that graphic
indicators, which surround the best bid/ask prices with their respective
quantities, are moved along [a] static axis,” and that this “is not one [and]
the same as moving a row to a particular area of the graphical user
interface.” Id. at 20 (emphases omitted) (citing Brumfield ¶¶ 107–108).
However, the Examiner relies upon Kemp(A), which Appellant does
not address,12 for the limitation of “mov[ing] a row . . . to a particular area of

12 Appellant argues that it could not fully respond to the Examiner’s § 103
rejection due to the Final Office Action containing a typographical in
Kemp(A)’s publication number. Appeal Br. 19. As we observe in note 5
above, however, the Examiner identified the correct publication number for
Kemp(A) in the Answer (Ans. 19), and, accordingly, Appellant had the
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

19
the graphical user interface.” Final Act. 17–18 (citing Kemp(A) ¶¶ 33, 116,
122); Ans. 22. We agree with the Examiner that Kemp(A) teaches or
suggests “mov[ing] a row . . . to a particular area of the graphical user
interface” and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to incorporate this teaching into the combination of references because
“moving rows by shifting the rows aids in making important data visible.”
Final Act. 18 (emphasis omitted); see Kemp(A) ¶ 122 (“the display . . . may
shift row-by-row”).
For the limitation of “render[ing] a highlighted box around the
particular area,” the Examiner relies upon Brumfield. Final Act. 18–19
(citing Brumfield ¶ 107, Fig. 11). Appellant does not dispute that Brumfield
teaches “graphic indicators, which surround the best bid/ask prices with their
respective quantities.” Appeal Br. 20. We agree with the Examiner that
Brumfield teaches or suggests “render[ing] a highlighted box around the
particular area” and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to incorporate this teaching into the combination of references for
“the visual benefits of highlighting important information.” Final Act. 19
(emphasis omitted); see Brumfield ¶ 107, Fig. 11 (disclosing a rectangular
block highlighting the inside market).
Finally, for the limitation of “detect[ing], via the input device, a
selection of an unpopulated bid field or ask field in a given row within the
highlighted box around the particular area,” the Examiner relies upon a

opportunity to—but did not—address Kemp(A) in the Reply Brief. We also
note that, as the Examiner points out in the Answer, the Notice of
References Cited accompanying the Final Office Action identified the
correct publication number for Kemp(A). See Ans. 19–20.
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

20
combination of Kemp’s disclosure of detecting a right click in an
unpopulated “AskQ” field to send a sell order (Final Act. 15–16 (citing
Kemp ¶ 51, Fig. 5)) and Brumfield’s disclosure of a rectangular box
highlighting the inside market (Final Act. 18–19 (citing Brumfield ¶ 107,
Fig. 11)). Appellant does not address the combination of the references, but
rather argues Brumfield individually. See Appeal Br. 20. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine the references in order to “help distinguish the highest bid and
lowest ask price [i.e., the inside market] for trading.” Final Act. 19
(emphasis omitted). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
teaches or suggests “detect[ing], via the input device, a selection of an
unpopulated bid field or ask field in a given row within the highlighted box
around the particular area” as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-002769
Application 13/969,580

21
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 for lack of written description.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 for indefiniteness.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
27–42 101 Eligibility 27–42
27–42 112 Written
Description
27–42
27–42 112 Indefiniteness 27–42
27–42 103 Kemp,
Kemp(A),
Brumfield
27–42
Overall
Outcome
27–42