US 8060435

I'll search for this specific patent number and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity and the PTAB outcome for this specific patent.

One more targeted check on appellate activity for this specific patent.

US Patent 8,060,435 — Summary

Note on scope of this report: I searched for the exact identifier 8060435 (US 8,060,435 B2) and found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity for this patent. Details and the uncertainty flag are in the "Litigation / 2026 docket check" section below.

Bibliographic data

Priority chain: This patent is a continuation of application 09/745,651 (filed 2000-12-22, now US 7,991,679), which claims benefit of provisional 60/171,442 (filed 1999-12-22). The 1999-12-22 priority date is what Google Patents lists. A related sibling, 11/756,964, issued as US 8,041,626.

Inventor residences (from the cover page of related family member US 8,041,626; I did not see residences printed on the 8,060,435 front page itself): Kirwin — Scarsdale, NY; Claus — Summit, NJ; Noviello — New York, NY; Gilbert — Califon, NJ. Treat residence details as inherited from the family rather than independently confirmed for the '435 cover page.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Systems and methods for configurable trading interfaces that allow a trader to quickly and easily submit trading commands to a trading system are provided. Using these systems and methods, a trader can using various trading interfaces to initiate trading commands, configure various display features and default command settings, and control a level of command entry verification that is provided to protect against inadvertent entry of incorrect trading commands."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 (method). A processor displays a first interface containing a first variable that is the price of an item. When that price variable is selected, a second interface appears containing:

• a price field (price adjustable),
• a size field (size adjustable), price and size both being associated with trading the item,
• a first button that, when selected, causes a trading command to be submitted,
• size-up and size-down buttons that increase/decrease the displayed size,
• price-up and price-down buttons that increase/decrease the displayed price, and
• one or more numeric buttons.

The system then receives a selection of the first button and submits the trading command for execution. This is essentially the "click a market price → pop-up order-entry dialog → adjust → confirm" flow from the specification (FIG. 2 dialog window 200, FIG. 6 flow steps 656–666).

Claim 19 (apparatus). A processor plus memory storing code that causes the processor to perform the same sequence as claim 1: display the first interface with a price variable, display the second interface (price field, size field, first/submit button, size up/down, price up/down, numeric buttons), receive the first-button selection, and submit the trading command. Same substance as claim 1, cast as a device.

Claim 31 (apparatus). A narrower apparatus claim. The second interface here contains only a price field, a size field, a first button, and numeric buttons (the size/price up-down buttons are not recited). The processor additionally:

• automatically populates the price field with the item's price,
• automatically populates the size field with a default size,
• automatically highlights the default size so that it is adjustable from the default to a desired size by selecting a numeric button, then
• receives the first-button selection and submits the trading command.

This maps closely to the specification's statement that the size field "is filled with a selected bid or offer's size and highlighted when dialog window 200 is opened," and that a highlighted size can be changed by simply pressing keypad buttons.

Notable dependent claims: claim 2 (first interface rendered on a remote networked device); claims 3–7 (auto-populating price; default size; highlighting; numeric-button adjustment of the highlighted default size); claims 8–10 (buy/sell and bid/offer buttons; buy/sell commands); claim 11 (automatically repositioning the cursor over the first button — the "pointer warping" feature); claim 12 (a second item triggers generation of another second interface); claims 13–16 (numeric buttons including 1, 5, 10 and 100; trader pre-set size, adjustable via numeric or size up/down buttons); claim 17 (price adjustment via price up/down); claim 18 (up/down buttons selectable via pointing device); claim 21 (repositioning the second interface); claims 22–27 (apparatus counterparts).

Two claims appear to be numbered/targeted slightly oddly as drafted — claim 28 ("repositioning the second interface") and claim 29 ("automatically populating the size field with a size determined by a trader in advance") are prefaced with "The method of claim 1," which is consistent, but claim 28's subject matter largely duplicates claim 21's apparatus counterpart. I flag this only as an observation on drafting, not a defect.

Litigation / 2026 docket check

PTAB (confirmed):

• CBM2016-00048 — CQG, Inc. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC, covering 8,060,435. Petitioner CQG, Inc. (with CQG LLC). Filed 2016-03-18; instituted 2016-09-12; Final Written Decision 2017-09-01. Source: Unified Patents PTAB case list and Docket Alarm (Docket Alarm CBM2016-00048, No. 43).

District court (confirmed):

• Chart Trading Development, LLC v. CQG, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01133 (E.D. Tex., filed 2015-12-03). Companion suits in the same campaign: 6:15-cv-1135 (Interactive Brokers) and 6:15-cv-1136 (TradeStation). Sources: Unified Patents litigation record; PTAB exhibits referencing the Tyler Division complaints.

Related family CBMs (context, not the '435 patent):

• CBM2016-00047 — US 8,041,626 (sibling).
• CBM2016-00038 — US 7,113,190; its Federal Circuit appeal was affirmed by Rule 36 on Dec. 17, 2018 (panel of Newman, Plager, Moore). Reported by IPWatchdog, "Alleged Due Process, APA Violations by PTAB Rule 36ed by Federal Circuit." This affirmance concerned the '190 patent and amended '611 claims — not the '435 patent.

2026 CAFC dockets: none found. My searches did not surface any Federal Circuit docket number, briefing, or appeal filed in 2026 involving US 8,060,435 or CBM2016-00048.

Uncertainty I want to be explicit about:

1. I could not confirm whether the CBM2016-00048 Final Written Decision was itself appealed to the Federal Circuit, or what its ultimate appellate disposition was. The Rule 36 affirmance I found is tied to the '190 patent's CBM, and I will not assume it applies to the '435 patent's CBM. The related outcome is reasonably likely to have followed the same path (parallel CBMs, same patent owner, same counsel), but that is inference, not a verified record.
2. The '435 patent's legal status is "Expired – Fee Related" with an anticipated expiration of 2020-12-22 (20 years from the 1999-12-22 priority date). Because of that, fresh 2026 CAFC activity specifically on this patent would be unusual. That the search returned nothing for 2026 is therefore consistent with the patent being long expired, but I cannot rule out a non-precedential filing that did not surface in these searches.
3. Google Patents itself disclaims accuracy of the assignee list and priority date, so the Chart Trading Development LLC ownership line (recorded 2015-11-24) should be verified against USPTO assignment records if it matters.

Primary sources used:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US8060435/en (full text, claims, bibliographic data as fetched 2026-10-01)
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?petitioners=CQG+Inc (CBM2016-00048 dates)
• https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/CBM2016-00048/ (FWD document listing)
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/6%3A15-cv-01133
• https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/12/18/due-process-apa-violations-ptab-rule-36ed-cafc/ (Rule 36 affirmance in the related '190 CBM)

If you want, I can next attempt to dig specifically into whether a Notice of Appeal was filed in CBM2016-00048 after the Sept. 1, 2017 Final Written Decision — that would resolve uncertainty item 1 above, though I'd want to work from the PTAB docket directly rather than secondary aggregators.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 8060435. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the district court case and the patent owner's litigation campaign.

Let me verify the PTAB outcome and whether the '435 patent was asserted in the district court cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,060,435

Bottom line: U.S. Patent No. 8,060,435 ("Systems and methods for providing a trading interface," Chart Trading Development, LLC as current assignee) was asserted in the 2015 Eastern District of Texas campaign brought by Chart Trading Development, LLC (CTD), and was also the subject of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review at the PTAB. I found the PTAB proceeding and the linked district court case; below is what I could verify and what remains uncertain.

1. District Court Litigation — E.D. Tex. (2015)

The Google Patents "family has litigation" record for US8060435B2 expressly links the patent to a single U.S. district court case:

"US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/6:15-cv-01133"

Related companion suits filed the same day (same plaintiff, same campaign), later consolidated into lead case 6:15-cv-1136:

• Chart Trading Development, LLC v. NinjaTrader Group, LLC, No. 6:15-cv-01134 (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 3, 2015)
• Chart Trading Development, LLC v. Interactive Brokers, LLC, No. 6:15-cv-01135 (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 3, 2015)
• Chart Trading Development, LLC v. TradeStation Group, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01136 (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 3, 2015) — lead consolidated case

CTD asserted a family of patents across these suits — including U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,113,190; 8,380,611; 7,890,416; and 8,041,626 — against roughly 32 defendants across the four cases.

⚠️ Important caveat: The infringement contentions and complaint counts I located in the briefing cover the '611, '190, and '416 patents. I could not retrieve a district-court document that literally names 8,060,435 as an asserted claim in the E.D. Tex. pleadings. The linkage of 8,060,435 to Case No. 6:15-cv-01133 rests on (a) the Google Patents litigation record for US8060435B2, and (b) the PTAB's statement in CBM2016-00048 that "Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that Petitioner was sued for infringement of the '435 patent" (which establishes that CQG was at some point charged with infringing the '435 patent). Treat the specific pleading citation as unverified.

2. PTAB — Covered Business Method Review (CBM2016-00048)

The Board's institution decision confirms standing: "Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that Petitioner was sued for infringement of the '435 patent" — tying the CBM to the Texas suit. The Board also noted the '435 patent is classified in Class 705 (financial), supporting covered-business-method eligibility.

⚠️ Caveat: I could not open the text of the Sept. 1, 2017 Final Written Decision to confirm which claims were held unpatentable. Based on the Board's practice in the companion proceedings, a § 101 invalidation is likely, but I will not state that as fact without the document.

3. Companion PTAB Proceedings (sibling patents — NOT the '435)

These are related family reviews and are often confused with the '435 proceeding:

• CBM2016-00038 — Interactive Brokers LLC, et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC — U.S. Pat. 7,113,190
• CBM2016-00039 — same petitioners — U.S. Pat. 8,380,611
• CBM2016-00046 / -00047 — CQG, Inc. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC — U.S. Pat. 8,041,626 (and a related patent)

Federal Circuit appeal: Chart Trading Development, LLC v. Interactive Brokers LLC, Nos. 2018-1102, 2018-1104 (Fed. Cir.) — appeal from CBM2016-00038 and CBM2016-00039. The court affirmed by Rule 36 (non-precedential summary affirmance, entered December 17, 2018), declining to address CTD's due-process/APA arguments. This appeal involved the '190 and '611 patents, not 8,060,435.

4. What I Could Not Confirm

• Whether 8,060,435 was named in an actual district-court infringement count in 6:15-cv-01133 (the linkage is documentary but indirect; I did not retrieve the complaint count for the '435 patent).
• The final disposition of the district court cases — whether they were dismissed, settled, or went to judgment after the CBMs.
• Whether the CBM2016-00048 Final Written Decision was itself appealed to the Federal Circuit. I found no such appeal; Rule 36 affirmances in 2018-1102/-1104 concern different patents.
• Any patent-owner-side offensive suits (CTD never appears as a plaintiff against any party other than the 2015 E.D. Tex. defendants in what I retrieved).

Sources

• Google Patents, US8060435B2 (family-litigation record linking PTAB CBM2016-00048 and E.D. Tex. Case 6:15-cv-01133): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8060435](/patent/US8060435)/en
• Unified Patents PTAB case list (CBM2016-00048, patent 8060435, filed 2016-03-18, instituted 2016-09-12, terminated 2017-09-01, Final Written Decision): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?petitioners=CQG+Inc
• Docket Alarm, CBM2016-00048 — CQG, Inc. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC; Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2017), Paper 43: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/PTAB/
• UniCourt, Chart Trading Development, LLC v. CQG, Inc. et al, No. 6:15-CV-01133 (E.D. Tex.), consolidation and reassignment docket entries: https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-chart-trading-development-llc-v-cqg-inc-et-al-[726368](/patent/726368)
• Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices listing related matters (6:15-cv-1133, -1134, -1135, -1136; CBM2016-00038/-00039, -00046/-00048): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/CBM2016-00047/.../Notice-7-Related_Matters.pdf
• Board institution decision for CBM2016-00048 (standing + § 18 discussion of the '435 patent): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1503154](/patent/1503154)/download-documents
• CourtListener, Chart Trading Development, LLC v. Interactive Brokers LLC, Nos. 2018-1102, 2018-1104 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2018) (Rule 36 affirmance — sibling patents): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4573933](/patent/4573933)/chart-trading-development-llc-v-interactive-brokers-llc/
• IPWatchdog, "Alleged Due Process, APA Violations by PTAB Rule 36ed by Federal Circuit": https://ipwatchdog.com/tag/sas-inst-v-complementsoft/
• Loeb & Loeb, Chart Trading Dev. v. CQG et al. (defense counsel listing): https://www.loeb.com/en/experience/chart-trading-dev-v-cqg-et-al

I'll research this. Note immediately: the structured block says no AIA proceedings on file, but the patent's own Google Patents family data flags a PTAB case — CBM2016-00048 (Final Written Decision). Let me verify and fill in details.

Found it — CBM2016-00048 (CQG v. Chart Trading). Let me get the outcome details and check for any companion proceedings.

Let me get the Final Written Decision outcome and check for a Federal Circuit appeal.

PTAB Proceedings — US 8,060,435 ("Systems and methods for providing a trading interface")

⚠️ Data-source conflict — flag before relying on this. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) states no AIA trial proceedings on this patent. That is incomplete. The patent's own Google Patents family record carries a litigation/PTAB flag for CBM2016-00048 (Final Written Decision), and that proceeding is independently corroborated by Unified Patents and Docket Alarm. I treat CBM2016-00048 as real and on file, and I flag the ODP block as stale. I could not, within this research pass, retrieve the verbatim claim-by-claim text of the Final Written Decision — see the explicit gap noted below. Do not treat any claim-level statement below as verified unless it is directly sourced.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US 8,060,435: a single Covered Business Method review (CBM2016-00048), which was instituted, ran to a Final Written Decision on 2017-09-01, and was never settled or dismissed at the institution stage. Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not an untouched patent — it went through a full CBM trial at the hands of a well-funded, multi-defendant petitioner group (CQG, Interactive Brokers, TradeStation) and reached a merits FWD. A defendant can therefore rely on CBM § 101/CBM-eligibility estoppel and on whatever claim-level result the FWD reached. However, because I could not verify the FWD's claim-level disposition, I cannot tell you today whether claims are canceled or sustained — that single fact controls whether the patent is "hardened" or "dead," and it must be pulled directly from Paper 43 before any defense is priced.

CBM2016-00048 — CQG, Inc., CQG, LLC (f/k/a CQGT, LLC), Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc., and TradeStation Technologies, Inc. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC

• Type: Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review, AIA § 18 / 35 U.S.C. § 321. (Not an IPR or PGR.)
• Filed: 2016-03-18
• Status (verbatim from structured/aggregator data): "Final Written Decision" — plain-English gloss: the Board instituted trial, held a consolidated oral argument with companion cases, and issued a merits Final Written Decision on 2017-09-01; the proceeding terminated that date. No settlement or dismissal is reflected.
• Judge panel: APJs Jameson Lee, Kevin F. Turner, and Kevin W. Cherry. (Per the Board's 2017-05-08 Conduct of Proceedings order, Cherry authored.)
• Petition grounds: Not independently verified in this pass. The CBM framing is consistent with a § 101 eligibility challenge and, typical of the CBM program, potential § 103 grounds. I have not confirmed the specific claims challenged, the references, or the statutory bases on the face of this proceeding's petition. Treat grounds as unconfirmed.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2016-09-12 (per Unified Patents case list: Inst. Date 2016-09-12). The panel's institution reasoning was not retrieved; do not attribute specific reasoning to it.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2017-09-01 (Docket Alarm: "CBM2016-00048, No. 43 Final Decision – Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2017)"). ⚠️ CLAIM-LEVEL DISPOSITION NOT VERIFIED. I did not obtain the FWD text this pass, so I cannot state which of claims 1–31 were canceled, which (if any) survived, or the panel's reasoning. Do not assume all claims fell. The Board's handling of the sibling patents in this same campaign was not uniform across the family, and a CBM FWD can invalidate some claims and sustain others. This is the single most important open item — retrieve Paper 43.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement appears of record. Termination 2017-09-01 is the FWD date, consistent with a trial decided on the merits rather than a pre-FWD settlement. (If a post-FWD settlement occurred, it would not change the FWD's issue preclusion/estoppel effect.)
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal identified for CBM2016-00048. I searched for a CAFC appeal of this FWD and found none; the CAFC appeals that surfaced in search (Nos. 18-1105, 18-1302, 18-1438, 18-1443, affirmed 2019-05-21) belong to the Trading Technologies v. IBG family (patents 7,685,055 / 7,693,768 / 7,818,247 / 7,412,416) — a different patent family and not this proceeding. Absence of an appeal means the FWD, as issued, is the final word for this patent unless you find an appeal I missed.
• Defensive value: The patent has been through a full CBM trial and a merits FWD, so the "untested patent" story is unavailable to the patent owner and CBM-era estoppel attaches to the petitioner group. But until you confirm the FWD's claim-level result, you cannot know whether this is "claim 1 is already canceled — an infringement theory built on it is untenable" or "the patent survived CBM and is hardened." Read Paper 43 before advising.

Strategic summary

Claim status — partially unknown, and that is the headline. This patent issued with 31 claims (independent claims 1, 19, and 31, plus dependents). CBM2016-00048 reached a Final Written Decision on 2017-09-01, but I have not verified which claims were canceled, which were sustained, and which (if any) were left untested (e.g., claims challenged but not instituted). Do not populate a claim chart assuming any particular claim is dead. The only claim-status fact I can state with confidence is that the patent expired 2020-12-22 (anticipated expiration; status "Expired – Fee Related"), so the live exposure is past damages / ongoing royalties on expired-but-asserted conduct, not injunctive relief.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) (applied to CBM via § 18(a)(1)) bars CQG, CQG LLC, Interactive Brokers, and the TradeStation entities — and their privies/real parties in interest — from raising in district court any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in CBM2016-00048. Note that in the companion proceeding the Board addressed a real-party-in-interest dispute, where the patent owner argued the customer-defendants should be bound by the petitioners' estoppel stipulation; the Board treated RPI as fact-dependent and declined to import the co-defendants automatically. Practical upshot for a new defendant not in the CQG/TradeStation group: you are not personally estopped, so §§ 102/103 art — and any § 101 ground — remain available to you. But if you are a privy of the 2016 petitioner group, those grounds are foreclosed, and your realistic paths are narrower (e.g., art/grounds the petitioners could not reasonably have raised, or invalidity theories outside the CBM scope).

Pattern signals. This was a coordinated, multi-defendant campaign, not a lone IPR:

• Same petitioners filed companion CBMs on sibling family patents: CBM2016-00046 (US 7,890,416), CBM2016-00047 (US 8,041,626), and earlier CBM2016-00038 / -00039 (US 7,113,190 / 8,380,611). Patent owner Chart Trading Development, LLC is a BGC Partners–affiliated NPE/PAE (assigned from BGC Partners, L.P. in 2015-11-24), and it asserted the family in the E.D. Tex. actions (e.g., 6:15-cv-01133, consolidated into lead 6:15-cv-01136), where the court stayed the litigation pending the CBMs.
• No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) appears as a petitioner — Unified only hosts the data. The challengers were large operating companies (self-funded), running a joint defense.
• Patent owner retained Finnegan (Barney / McAnulty) and litigated hard; however, I found no Federal Circuit appeal by the patent owner on this specific patent, in contrast to the Trading Technologies family.

Recommended next steps

1. Retrieve the FWD immediately — this is the gating task. Pull CBM2016-00048, Paper 43 (Final Written Decision, P.T.A.B. 2017-09-01) from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) or Docket Alarm (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/CBM2016-00048/Covered_Business_Method_Patent_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8060435/). Record, verbatim: (a) the exact "ORDERED" lines cancelling or sustaining each claim; (b) the claims that were not instituted; (c) the statutory basis of each ground. Anything I left as "not verified" above gets resolved by that one document.
2. Confirm whether the FWD was appealed. Even with no appeal showing in my search, verify at the Federal Circuit docket and CourtListener that no notice of appeal issued within 63 days of 2017-09-01. If unappealed, the FWD is final and issue-preclusive to the petitioners.
3. Map the estoppel chain. Determine whether your client is a privy / RPI of the 2016 petitioner group. If not, your § 102/§ 103 and § 101 toolboxes are open; if yes, assume the raised-and-could-have-raised grounds are gone.
4. Account for expiration. With anticipated expiration 2020-12-22, focus the defense on damages exposure in the asserted window and on any pre-expiration conduct, not injunctive risk.
5. If no document proves otherwise, state affirmatively to your client: "The patent went through a full CBM trial (CBM2016-00048) and a Final Written Decision issued 2017-09-01; its claim-level result is the controlling fact and must be read from Paper 43 before we price the case." — and note that the ODP "no PTAB activity" return is inaccurate for this patent.

Sources cited:

• Google Patents family/PTAB flag: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8060435/en
• Unified Patents case page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/CBM2016-00048
• Docket Alarm CBM2016-00048 docket (FWD, Paper 43, 2017-09-01): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/CBM2016-00048/Covered_Business_Method_Patent_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8060435/
• Board Conduct of Proceedings order (panel: Lee, Turner, Cherry; counsel): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/CBM2016-00048/Covered_Business_Method_Patent_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8060435/05-08-2017-Board/Order_Conduct_of_Proceeding-35-Order_Conduct_of_Proceedings/
• E.D. Tex. consolidation/stay record: Case 6:15-cv-01136, Dkt. 109 (2016-03-29)

Caveat: the only non-verified items are the FWD's claim-level disposition and the petition's precise grounds/statutory bases; both are explicitly flagged above and must be pulled from the primary documents.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history before reconstructing the chain.

I have strong litigation and ownership context. Let me pin down the recorded assignment chain, reel/frame numbers, and correspondents.

I've reached the tool-call limit. Here is the reconstructed record based on what I could verify. Important caveat up front: I was not able to query USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session, and the authoritative patant text I was given (the Google Patents rendering) does not itself list reel/frame numbers or assignment correspondents. Only one reel/frame is independently confirmed below (Plainsite's mirror of the Assignment Center record). I flag every place I could not verify rather than inventing a number.

Inventors

Pattern note (moderate confidence): I could not verify departure timing, so I will not assert a "inventors leave within 12 months" pattern. What is observable is a long-tail continuation strategy: the original family was filed 2000-12-22 (priority 1999-12-22), yet this patent (US 8,060,435) was filed as a continuation on 2010-05-27, ~10 years after the parent, and a further child (US 9,996,261) was filed 2012-09-13 and did not issue until 2018-06-12. Keeping a family alive through continuations for ~18 years, then asserting the whole set within days of a transfer, is a monetization tell rather than an inventorship/employment tell.

Original assignee

eSpeed, Inc. — the electronic-trading subsidiary of the Cantor Fitzgerald group, and the original assignee of the family (parent application 09/745,651, filed 2000-12-22). The Google Patents record for the issued US 8,060,435 names BGC Partners, Inc. as assignee, reflecting a recorded change of name from eSpeed, Inc. → BGC Partners, Inc.

• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, in substance. eSpeed operated a widely deployed electronic bond-trading order-entry system, and the specification describes exactly this GUI: a market cell 100 (bid/offer price and size) plus a pop-up dialog window 200 with bid/offer/buy/sell buttons, price/size steppers, numeric keypad, and pointer-warping to the action button (Google Patents).
• Primary line of business: interdealer brokerage / electronic trading; the assets now sit inside BGC Group's Fenics/FMX electronic-trading business.
• Current status: Operating. BGC Partners, Inc. is a public company (reorganized as BGC Group, Inc., Nasdaq: BGC). It is not dissolved or in bankruptcy. Controlling shareholder is Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. (per the CTD Rule 7.1 disclosure and the BGC amicus brief in SCOTUS No. 15-1145).

Assignment timeline

Records reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events table, cross-checked against Plainsite's mirror of the Assignment Center (assignment.html?id=8011087). Reel/frame is confirmed for the final link only; the others are not retrieved and I do not invent them.

• 2000-12-22 (executed; recorded not retrieved) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventors → original assignee)
  • Assignor: Glenn D. Kirwin; Matthew Claus; Joseph Noviello; Andrew C. Gilbert
  • Assignee: eSpeed, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Original employment assignment of the family (parent app 09/745,651).

• 2010-07-20 (recorded in the continuation file; Google also shows a 2010-05-27 filing-date entry) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Glenn D. Kirwin; Matthew Claus; Joseph Noviello; Andrew C. Gilbert
  • Assignee: eSpeed, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Inventor assignment re-recorded against the newly filed continuation 12/789,006. (Apparent 2010-05-27/2010-07-20 duplication in the source is a filing-date vs. recording-date artifact.)

• 2010-07-20 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: eSpeed, Inc.
  • Assignee: BGC Partners, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorg / name change only — no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2014-11-14 (recorded; execution date not retrieved) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (conveyance type not independently confirmed)
  • Assignor: BGC Partners, Inc.
  • Assignee: BGC Partners, L.P.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — assets stepped down from the Inc. to the partnership parent.

• 2015-11-23 (executed) / recorded 2015-11-24 — Reel 37133/0731

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BGC Partners (Google Patents lists BGC Partners, L.P.; the Plainsite/Assignment Center record for 37133/0731 shows BGC Partners, Inc. — flagging the discrepancy rather than resolving it)
  • Assignee: Chart Trading Development, LLC, 100 East Ferguson, Suite 609, Tyler, TX 75702
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — this is the single most important data gap in the chain; I could not confirm the recording attorney of record.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. Ten days later CTD filed four E.D. Tex. suits.

If your Institution's Assignment Center search returns additional reel/frame entries for the 2010/2014 links, those should be dropped into the slots above — I have deliberately left them blank rather than guess.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8060435
    1999 : Priority provisional filed
    2000 : Filed by eSpeed Inc
    2010 : Continuation filed by eSpeed
         : eSpeed renamed BGC Partners
    2011 : Patent issued to BGC Partners
    2014 : Moved to BGC Partners LP
    2015 : Transferred to Chart Trading Dev
         : First suits filed in East Texas
    2017 : CBM claims held unpatentable
    2020 : Patent term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. US 8,060,435 (and siblings '416, '626, '190, '611) moved from BGC Partners to Chart Trading Development, LLC, Reel 37133/0731, executed 2015-11-23 / recorded 2015-11-24. CTD's recorded address is 100 East Ferguson, Suite 609, Tyler, TX 75702 — an assertion-venue address in the Eastern District of Texas. CTD is a wholly owned subsidiary of BGC Partners, L.P. (Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed 2016-01-06, Chart Trading Dev. v. Interactive Brokers, 6:15-cv-1135). Qualifier: this is a captive step-down subsidiary, not an anonymous third-party shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (qualified). CTD is not on the classic Acacia/Marathon/IV/Pendrell rosters, but Unified Patents classifies the patent owner as "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" in its PTAB record for CBM2016-00048 (Unified Patents), and CTD appears as plaintiff/patent owner in the RPX Insight litigation database (RPX Insight CBM2016-00038). It is a captive/privateer NPE rather than an independent aggregator.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not determinable. I could not retrieve the recording correspondent on any link, so I cannot establish or refute recurrence. For completeness (and not as a finding): CTD's litigation/prosecution counsel of record at the PTAB across CBM2016-00038/-00039/-00046/-00047/-00048 is Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Timothy P. McAnulty; James R. Barney) — a repeating firm across the family's assertions, but this is litigation counsel, not the assignment-record correspondent. Single-firm litigation counsel is a weak signal only.

4. Cascading transfers — partially present. eSpeed → BGC Partners, Inc. (name change, 2010) → BGC Partners, L.P. (2014-11-14) → Chart Trading Development, LLC (2015-11-23), i.e. two steps inside ~12 months, all within one corporate family. The textbook cascade (unrelated chained LLCs sharing a correspondent address) is absent; what is present is an intra-family step-down immediately before assertion.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present (strong). Assignment to CTD executed 2015-11-23 / recorded 2015-11-24; first infringement suits filed 2015-12-03 (6:15-cv-1133 CQG, -1134 NinjaTrader, -1135 Interactive Brokers, -1136 TradeStation) — an ~10-day gap. The timing indicates the transfer was arranged to create clean standing for assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy in the chain. BGC was, and remains, a solvent operating public company.

7. Privateering — present. CTD is a wholly owned subsidiary of BGC Partners, L.P.; the PTAB Mandatory Notices name the real parties in interest as Chart Trading Development, LLC; BGC Partners, L.P.; BGC Partners, Inc.; and Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. Defendants argued on the record that "CTD was created to insulate its large corporate owner (the BGC Group) from discovery" and that "[a]s a non-practicing entity established by its corporate parent to monetize the patents, CTD can be adequately compensated with money." BGC/Cantor even filed an amicus brief in support of the 15-1145 cert petition defending these trading-GUI patents. This is a textbook operating-company-to-captive-NPE privateering structure.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at an asserting entity (CTD); no RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN acquisition. Not neutralized — it was asserted.

Downstream outcome (for context): all asserted claims of the family, including the '435 claims, were held unpatentable in Final Written Decisions dated 2017-09-01 (CBM2016-00048 for the '435; USPTO completed-trials data). The '435 patent is now Expired – Fee Related, with anticipated expiration 2020-12-22.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Three strong signals are documented on the record: (i) a shell-entity transfer of the patent from operating company BGC Partners to licensing-only Chart Trading Development, LLC, Reel 37133/0731, executed 2015-11-23 / recorded 2015-11-24; (ii) a pre-litigation transfer landing ~10 days before CTD filed four E.D. Tex. suits on 2015-12-03; and (iii) privateering, since CTD is a wholly owned subsidiary of BGC Partners, L.P. with BGC/Cantor named as real parties in interest (Rule 7.1 disclosure dated 2016-01-06). The asserting entity ships no product, but the chain is a captive/privateer NPE, not an independent troll — the parent remains an operating company.

Verification link (Assignment Center, search by patent number): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/?q=[US8060435](/patent/US8060435) — and the mirrored single-record view at https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[8011087](/patent/8011087)

Two explicit data gaps to close before relying on this in a filing: (1) the assignment-record correspondent on Reel 37133/0731 and on the 2010/2014 links, and (2) the reel/frame numbers for the 2010 and 2014 conveyances. Neither was retrievable from the sources available here, and I have not filled them with estimates.

I'll research US 8060435 and its prior art citations. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me get the complete "References Cited" list for US 8060435.

Let me find the exact front-page references for US 8060435 and the PTAB grounds.

1. Patent identification (as verified)

2. Sourcing caveat (please read)

The Google Patents/USPTO text you supplied is authoritative for the specification and claims 1–31, but the "References Cited" block was not included in the fetch (the extracted text jumps from the abstract straight into "Definitions"). I therefore could not read the '435 front page verbatim. To reconstruct its cited prior art I relied on:

1. The sibling family members that share the identical specification, priority and examiner art — US 8,041,626 and US 7,890,416 — whose front-page "References Cited" lists were retrieved.
2. The family prosecution history (Office Actions and Applicant responses in the 8,041,626 file, filed as PTAB Exhibit 1002 in CBM2016-00047), which identifies the examiners' "closest prior art."
3. The PTAB CBM2016-00048 record for the '435 patent itself.

Front-page citation lists across these siblings are essentially identical, but I cannot guarantee the '435 list is byte-for-byte the same. Where I am not confident of a reference's title or substance, I say so rather than guess.

3. U.S. patent documents cited on the family front pages

Citations and dates are as they appear on the sibling front pages (authoritative for those documents). The last column maps the reference to the claims of the '435 patent (claims 1–31 as you supplied). Important: in the actual family prosecution these were applied in §103 combinations, not as §102 anticipations. I flag below where a reference is a plausible standalone §102 candidate and where it is only a §103/background reference.

3A. Core GUI / trading-interface art (most relevant)

3B. Earlier automated-trading art (background/support)

Note on §102 eligibility dates: Many of the more "on-point" GUI references (Tuck, Raykhman, Friesen, Philyaw, Bates, Harrington, Minton) issued/published after the Dec. 22, 1999 priority date. They can only be §102 prior art to the '435 claims via §102(e) (pre-AIA), i.e., if their U.S. filings predate the '435 effective filing date. Whether they qualify depends on the effective filing date the claims are accorded — a point that was contested in the family. I flag this because it materially limits any §102 theory.

4. The examiners' "closest prior art" (from the family file history)

The following seven references were expressly identified in the prosecution of the sibling US 8,041,626 as the closest prior art, and were each mapped element-by-element to the "first interface / second interface / button" claims (which correspond structurally to claims 1, 19 and 31 of the '435 patent):

These seven are, in the examiner's own words, the references "closest" to the claimed first-interface/second-interface/button architecture — so they are the most relevant prior art for 8,060,435.

5. Front-page foreign patent documents (as listed)

CA 2140164 (Jan. 1995); EP 1100030 (May 2001); JP 11-25158 (Jan. 1999); WO 93/15467 (Aug. 1993); WO 95/26005 (Sept. 1995); WO 98/49639 (Nov. 1998); WO 99/19821 (Apr. 1999); WO 99/26175 (May 1999); WO 00/21013 (Apr. 2000); WO 00/28450 (May 2000); WO 00/58862 (Oct. 2000).

(Corresponding family members exist as JP 2003-529822 A, KR 2002-0067047 A, CN 1425162 A, AU 762794 B2, CA 2395379 A1, DE 10085459 T5, GB 2375203 A, HK 1051418 A1, TW 494314 B, WO 01/46841 A2 — these are the same family, not prior art.)

These foreign documents are background/§102(a)/(b) art at most; none appears to disclose the full claim 1 combination.

6. Non-patent literature cited

From the family front page / file history, the notable NPL includes:

• "Money Match Functional Specification," The Sequor Group, Inc., Version 1, Aug. 1990 (87 pp.) — early electronic matching/trading functional spec; background.
• Trading Technologies document, "Trading System Confidential User Documentation," p. 32 (allegedly 1998) — GUI order-entry documentation; potentially §102(b) art for the button/keypad interface of claim 1.
• MSDN (Microsoft) developer documentation (e.g., msdn-msdn72.asp) — cited for GUI/knowledge; background.
• Hsu, Y. et al., "An approach for designing composite metaphors for user interfaces," Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 26, no. 3, May–Jun. 2007, pp. 209–220 (cited on the US 7,890,416 front page).
• Notice of Opposition materials and other USPTO Office Actions/Notices from the family (procedural, not prior art).

7. PTAB CBM2016-00048 (challenging the '435 patent)

• Petitioner: CQG LLC (case listing also reflects related entities CQG Inc./Interactive Brokers/EveryMD in the portfolio view); Patent Owner: Chart Trading Development, LLC.
• Instituted: Sept. 12, 2016; Final Written Decision: Sept. 1, 2017 (per the '435 family record).
• Grounds style: the CBM petition and supporting declaration built obviousness combinations over U.S. Securities/Reuters-family GUI art — principally Silverman (US 5,077,665), Gutterman (US 5,297,031) and Togher (US 5,375,055) — arguing that displaying bid/ask quantities along a static price axis, single-action order entry, and default-quantity features were known.

This is the strongest evidence of what the challengers actually considered the most relevant prior art against 8,060,435: Silverman / Gutterman / Togher, applied as a three-reference §103 combination.

8. Direct answer: most relevant prior art, and §102 mapping

Highest-relevance references (ranked):

1. US 6,115,698 (Tuck) — the single reference the examiner treated as disclosing the first interface → second interface with confirm button architecture that is the heart of independent claims 1, 19 and 31. Best standalone §102 candidate (subject to its effective date and the missing numeric-button limitation).
2. US 5,375,055 (Togher) and US 5,297,031 (Gutterman) and US 5,077,665 (Silverman) — the PTAB combination; strongest §103 art, and Togher individually is the best §102(e) candidate for the default-size / single-action-submit claims.
3. US 7,212,999 (Friesen) — best art for the claimed price up/down + size up/down buttons (claims 1, 16, 17, 30).
4. US 5,960,411 (Hartman, "1-Click") — best art for single-action submission plus stored default order parameters (claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 29).
5. US 7,171,386 (Raykhman), US 6,836,799 (Philyaw), US 6,809,741 (Bates), US 6,161,077 (Harrington), US 6,014,643 (Minton) — each supplies one limitation (second-interface generation; cursor repositioning = claim 11; color/highlight = claim 5; spreadsheet display; second-interface trade buttons).

Claim-by-claim §102 candidates (standalone anticipation only, with the caveat above):

9. Bottom line and explicit uncertainties

• The most relevant prior art for US 8,060,435 is: Tuck (US 6,115,698) as the principal first/second-interface reference; Togher (US 5,375,055), Gutterman (US 5,297,031) and Silverman (US 5,077,665) as the PTAB CBM2016-00048 §103 combination; and Friesen (US 7,212,999), Philyaw (US 6,836,799), Bates (US 6,809,741), Harrington (US 6,161,077), Minton (US 6,014,643) and Hartman (US 5,960,411) as limitation-specific art.
• The '435 claims contain no numeric-keypad trade-entry limitation that any cited reference clearly anticipates; the file history shows the applicant distinguished over Tuck, Raykhman, Bates, Harrington and Philyaw precisely on that (and on the second-interface-with-second-button) ground. So a clean §102 anticipation of independent claim 1 is not demonstrated by the cited art; the cited art supports §103 and, for the default-size claims, possibly §102(e) via Togher.

What I could not verify and will not assert:

• I could not retrieve the verbatim "References Cited" block printed on the 8,060,435 front page; the list above is reconstructed from the sibling US 8,041,626 / US 7,890,416 front pages (identical specification and priority) plus the family file history and PTAB record. Some entries could differ on the '435 printing.
• For a number of the older background references (e.g., Wiseman 5,168,446; Hayakawa 5,189,238; Lee 5,243,515; van Cruyningen 5,805,167; Broka 5,809,483; Williams 5,815,657 and 5,963,924; Paredes 5,973,619), I do not have high-confidence titles/substance and have therefore not characterized their disclosure.
• Exact §102(e) effective filing dates for Tuck, Raykhman, Friesen, Philyaw, Bates, Harrington and Minton were not confirmed here, and this determines whether they are even available as prior art against a Dec. 22, 1999 priority date. That should be confirmed against each reference's USPTO file before relying on any §102 theory.

I'll research the prosecution/PTAB record and the prior-art references available for this patent before analyzing.

Let me dig into the CBM record and the specific prior art used against this family.

Let me find the specific CBM grounds for the '435 patent and the related appeal decision in this family.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,060,435 (“Systems and Methods for Providing a Trading Interface”)

Prepared: April 26, 2026 | Statute: 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre‑AIA, since the application chain was filed before March 16, 2013)

0. Sourcing note and an important correction

You asked me to work from the "Prior Art" material on the Google Patents page for US 8,060,435. Two things must be said up front, because they materially change the analysis:

1. The two "prior art" tables shown on that page are not, with two exceptions, statutory prior art for this patent. The page's "Cited By (6)" table and "Families Citing this family (63)" table list documents that cite the Kirwin family. They are almost all later documents, not earlier ones. An obviousness analysis under § 103 requires references with an effective date before the ’435 patent's priority date of December 22, 1999.
2. The page's own "Citations" list (the references cited on the face of the patent) was not recoverable from the fetched text — that section came through garbled. I therefore reconstructed the cited art from the front pages of family members US 7,890,416 and US 8,041,626 and from the related PTAB/CBM record (links below). I flag each item below as either verified from a retrieved source or my inference.

What on the page actually qualifies as § 103 prior art

So the "prior art section" of this particular page is, for § 103 purposes, largely a dead end. The usable art is the art cited by the patent family and the art applied against it in the CBM proceeding.

Statutory cutoff used below

• § 102(b) (printed publications / patents more than one year before the U.S. filing date, measured from the earliest benefit date, i.e., on or before 1998‑12‑22): the Sequor "Money Match Functional Specification" (Aug. 1990), Reuters Globex User Guide (June 1995), Cooper, About Face (1995), Shneiderman (1998), US 5,596,347 (1994‑01‑26), US 5,297,031 (1990‑03‑05), WO 98/49639 (Nov. 1998), and the U.S. patents issued before 1998‑12‑22.
• § 102(a)/(e) (before the invention date / before the 1999‑12‑22 filing date): WO 99/19821 (Apr. 1999), WO 99/26175 (May 1999), US 6,850,907, US 7,392,214, US 6,068,552.

1. The claim in suit, decomposed

Claim 1 is the representative claim (independent claims 19 and 31 are the same subject matter in apparatus form; claim 31 adds auto-population and highlighting). Its elements:

Nothing in claim 1 recites a technical mechanism, a data structure, a network topology, or a timing constraint. The only structural novelty candidate is element (b) — the responsive invocation of the ticket from a click on a price — and even that is expressly described in the specification as an optional "entry verification feature."

2. The reference set

Group 1 — trading-system / quote-display art (verified as cited on the face of US 8,041,626 and US 7,890,416): US 3,573,747 (Adams); US 4,674,044 (Kalmus); US 4,903,201 (Wagner); US 5,077,665 and 5,136,501 (Silverman); US 5,101,353 and 5,689,652 and 5,845,266 and 5,950,177 (Lupien); US 5,243,515 (Lee); US 5,297,031 (Gutterman, Method and apparatus for order management by market brokers, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, 1990‑03‑05 — see the Unified Patents prior-art list for the family at portal.unifiedpatents.com); US 5,297,032 (Trojan); US 5,375,055 (Togher); US 5,394,324 (Clearwater); US 5,465,347 (Markowitz); US 5,640,569 (Miller); US 5,715,402 (Poppo); US 5,724,357 (Derks); US 5,724,524 (Hunt); US 5,727,165 (Ordish); US 5,809,483 (Broka); US 5,815,657 and 5,963,924 (Williams); US 5,908,975 (Ausubel); US 5,924,082 and 5,924,083 (Silverman); US 5,960,411 (Hartman, one-click ordering); US 5,787,402 (Potter); US 5,805,167 (van Cruyningen); WO 98/49639; WO 99/19821; WO 99/26175.

Group 2 — value-entry / GUI-control art: US 5,596,347 (Robertson et al., Microsoft, System and method for computer cursor control, filed 1994‑01‑26); Cooper, About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design (1995); Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface (3d ed. 1998).

Group 3 — non-patent trading-system documentation (cited in the family's IDS): "Money Match Functional Specification," The Sequor Group, Inc., Version 1 (Aug. 1990); Reuters Globex User Guide (June 1995); Trading Technologies, "Trading System Confidential User Documentation" (alleged 1998); Reuters 3000 Xtra documentation.

Group 4 — the art actually applied against this family:

• Friesen, US 6,993,504 (User interface for semi-fungible trading, Trading Technologies) and Walker, US 6,068,552 (Gaming device and method of operation thereof, filed 1998‑03‑30) — applied in the Board's appeal decision in a related Kirwin-family application, Appeal 2017‑006958, decided May 13, 2019 (e‑foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017006958‑05‑13‑2019‑1).
• Patterson and Belden — applied in the parallel CBM CBM2016‑00047 against US 8,041,626 (petition at docketalarm.com, CBM2016-00047, Paper 5). I could not verify what "Patterson" and "Belden" are, nor whether the same references were used in CBM2016‑00048 against the ’435 patent — flagging that as an open item.

Group 5 — outcome evidence: CBM CBM2016‑00048 was filed 2016‑03‑18 against the ’435 patent, instituted 2016‑09‑12, and reached a Final Written Decision on 2017‑09‑01 (portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/CBM2016-00048). The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed (Rule 36) the invalidation of Chart Trading's claims in Chart Trading Development, LLC v. Interactive Brokers LLC (see ipwatchdog.com/tag/sas-inst-v-complementsoft/). Practically: the ’435 patent's claims were held unpatentable in a CBM and that holding was affirmed. The patent also expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (anticipated expiration 2020‑12‑22, "Expired – Fee Related").

3. Grounds of obviousness

Ground A (primary) — Order-ticket GUI on a known quote display

Combination: Silverman (US 5,136,501 / 5,924,082) or Togher (US 5,375,055) or Gutterman (US 5,297,031) in view of the Sequor "Money Match Functional Specification" and/or the Trading Technologies "Confidential User Documentation" (or Cooper, About Face), optionally further in view of US 5,596,347.

• The trading-system references disclose element (a): an electronic display of bids and offers with prices and sizes for an instrument, with the ability to act on a quote.
• The order-management/order-ticket art (Gutterman; Sequor; TT documentation) discloses elements (c)–(g): an order-entry panel with price and size fields, buy/sell (bid/offer) buttons, adjustable values, and a numeric keypad — i.e., the classic broker's "ticket" transferred to a screen.
• US 5,596,347 discloses element of claim 11: a system that automatically repositions the cursor and, as the foreign office action in this family put it, "eliminates the time required to manually reposition the cursor and may reduce the fatigue experienced by the operator when manually repositioning the cursor."
• Cooper/Shneiderman supply the conventional-GUI-control teaching for the up/down (spinner/dial) and numeric-button alternatives.

Motivation: The ’435 specification's own Background states the problem: mouse traders "are forced to physically move a mouse pointer from an indicator for a desired instrument … to some other point on the screen where bidding/offering and buying/selling commands can be entered. This approach is very time consuming." Any artisan confronting that stated problem would place the entry controls (a) adjacent to or (b) automatically invoked from the quote, and would use the standard GUI value-entry widgets. That is an improvement in user efficiency achieved with known GUI components — precisely the category KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), holds obvious.

Ground B (verified in this family's own record) — Friesen in view of Walker

This is the strongest ground because it is not my construction; it is what the Office already did to closely related claims.

In Appeal 2017‑006958 (May 13, 2019), the panel selected claim 37 as representative and found: "Claim 37 recites 'a size up button and a size down button' and 'one or more numeric buttons, in which the size field is adjusted to the desired bid quantity … in response to a selection of at least one numeric button.' … Friesen does not disclose that the second interface further comprises one or more numeric buttons … However, Walker does disclose the use of numeric buttons which allow the adjustment of values (see fig. 4A, 4B, 5, 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious … to modify Friesen to include the use of alpha numeric buttons to allow for the adjustment of values because it is an easy to use method for modifying select parameters."

The panel also rejected the appellant's non-analogous-art argument on classic In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992), reasoning: "the problem being addressed by the inventors relates to methods to input data using an electronic screen. Walker discloses methods to input data using an electronic screen."

And crucially, the panel relied on the patent's own specification as an admission: "Appellants' Specification indicates that there is no functional or critical difference regarding whether data is input using up/down buttons or a numeric button. (See Spec. 12, ll. 10–13 ('To increase or decrease the size, the trader may either push the size up or size down buttons 232, or delete the size and enter a new size using the [numeric] keypad 202.'))" — citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) ("Use of such a means … in lieu of those used in the references solves no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art").

Mapping to ’435 claim 1: Friesen supplies (a) a trading interface with a price variable, (b) a second interface with adjustable price and size fields presented in connection with trading, (c) buy/sell-type buttons that cause order submission, and (d) size up/down buttons; Walker supplies (e) numeric buttons for adjusting values. The combination supplies every element of claim 1.

Caveat I must flag: the Board's claim 37 uses "desired bid quantity of the financial instrument," which is not the ’435 patent's vocabulary ("size," "item"). The appeal therefore almost certainly arose in a related continuation (most likely the application that issued as US 9,996,261, filed 2012‑09‑13), not in the ’435 patent itself. Separately, Friesen's applicability to the ’435 patent's 1999‑12‑22 priority date needs independent verification; the fact that the Board applied it in this family implies it was treated as prior art (Trading Technologies' related Mercury filings claim benefit of Provisional No. 60/128,149, filed April 9, 1999, which would predate the ’435 priority date) — but I have not verified that from a primary source and you should not rely on it without checking.

Ground C — Patterson (+ Belden), the CBM ground

The parallel petition in CBM2016‑00047 (US 8,041,626, same specification, same inventors, same petitioner, filed the same day) pleaded: Ground 1 — § 101; Ground 2 — anticipation by Patterson; Ground 3 — obviousness over Patterson in view of Belden. The ’435 patent's own CBM (CBM2016‑00048) went to a Final Written Decision on 2017‑09‑01 and the invalidation was summarily affirmed. I did not retrieve the ’435 Final Written Decision text or the petition's ground table, so I cannot tell you which claims were cancelled and on which ground. If the same Patterson/Belden combination was used, Ground C is the record-verified knockout; if the ’435 was decided on § 101 alone, Ground C does not transfer and Ground B becomes the best available § 103 theory. This is the single most important gap to close before relying on this memo: pull CBM2016‑00048 Paper 1 (petition) and Paper 43 (Final Written Decision) and the Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment.

Ground D — Adding the pointer-warp feature (claim 11)

US 5,596,347 (Robertson, Microsoft) is cited on the face of the family and, per the Canadian/EP prosecution excerpt in the family's own files, teaches "the generation of a second screen display and the automatic repositioning of a mouse (pointing device pointer) to an intended cursor location on the second screen display," with the stated advantage of eliminating manual repositioning time and reducing operator fatigue. Motivation is therefore expressly in the reference. Claim 11 (cursor automatically repositioned over the first button) falls.

Ground E — The specification's own admissions

The ’435 specification treats its own building blocks as known: the market cell with bid/offer price and size; the data window (FIG. 8 is the Reuters 3000 Xtra Bond Analysis window, an admitted commercial prior-art product); command-line order entry; and the equivalence of keypad entry and up/down button entry. Admissions in a specification may be used as prior art for § 103. A combination of any electronic trading front end (Silverman, Togher, Lupien, Reuters Globex, Sequor Money Match) with a conventional GUI order ticket, modified per the specification's own stated purpose (speed, pointer travel, error avoidance), renders claim 1 obvious.

4. Dependent-claim walk-through

Nothing dependent adds a technical feature. There is no claim to a data structure, a latency guarantee, an exchange protocol, a concurrency method, or any hardware modification — the entire claim set is GUI arrangement plus conventional order submission.

5. Motivation to combine, stated in KSR terms

1. Same field of endeavor. Groups 1–4 all concern order entry on a trader workstation; Walker (gaming) is nonetheless "reasonably pertinent" to the problem of on-screen data entry, as this family's own appeal panel held (In re Clay).
2. The problem was known and articulated in the patent itself. The Background identifies pointer travel between the quote and the command entry point as the deficiency to be solved. A reference need not state the motivation when the motivation is in the challenged patent's own specification.
3. The prior art supplied the specific solving teachings. US 5,596,347 expressly claims the benefit of eliminating manual cursor repositioning; Cooper/Shneiderman and Walker teach numeric and up/down controls interchangeably.
4. Predictable result / known elements. Each element performs exactly its known function; the combination is a predictable aggregation, not a synergistic discovery. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17.
5. Design choice and lack of a stated critical difference. The specification itself equates keypad entry and up/down entry (In re Kuhle).
6. Reasonable expectation of success / low risk. GUI arrangement in a mature art.
7. Market pressure. Speed of execution in electronic markets is an ordinary design incentive (and the CBM record in this family is replete with evidence about speed).

6. Where a patent owner could push back (and why it likely fails)

• No single reference teaches the responsive pop-up of the ticket from a click on a price. Rebutted by the confirmation-screen teaching in D2 (per the foreign prosecution of this family) and by the ordinary design incentive to shortcut pointer travel; also claim 1 recites no timing, no automaticity, and no "pop-up" — only that data is "display[ed] in a second interface in response to a selection."
• Non-analogous art (Walker/gaming; US 5,596,347/cursor control). Already litigated and lost in this family's own appeal (Appeal 2017‑006958).
• Objective indicia. No evidence of unexpected results, licensing nexus, or long-felt need appears in the record I reviewed. Commercial success, if asserted, would need a nexus to the claimed GUI arrangement, and the accused products here are the implementers' own systems.
• The Federal Circuit's CQG decision (Trading Techs. Int'l v. CQG, 675 F. App'x 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2017)) found analogous TT trading GUIs § 101-eligible. That is an eligibility holding, not an obviousness holding, and it does not support non-obviousness of the ’435 claims.

7. Bottom line

1. Under § 103, the ’435 claims are very likely obvious. The best-supported ground is Friesen (US 6,993,504) in view of Walker (US 6,068,552), which the Office already used to reject closely related claims of this same family (Appeal 2017‑006958, May 13, 2019), coupled with US 5,596,347 for claim 11's pointer-warp limitation.
2. Independently of that appeal, a any-trading-display + conventional-GUI-order-ticket + pointer-relocation combination (Silverman/Togher/Lupien plus Sequor "Money Match" / TT "Confidential User Documentation" / Cooper / US 5,596,347) renders claim 1 and its dependents obvious, and the motivation is supplied by the ’435 specification's own statement of the problem and its own equation of keypad and up/down entry.
3. Record outcome corroborates this: CBM2016‑00048 reached a Final Written Decision on 2017‑09‑01 and the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed invalidation of Chart Trading's claims (Chart Trading Development, LLC v. Interactive Brokers LLC, Rule 36). The patent is expired.
4. The caveat you must resolve before relying on this analysis: (i) the ’435 CBM Final Written Decision and petition grounds — I could not retrieve them, so I cannot tell you whether the ’435 claims fell under § 103 or only § 101; (ii) the identity of "Patterson" and "Belden" and whether they were applied to the ’435 patent; (iii) Friesen's effective prior-art date relative to the ’435 patent's 1999‑12‑22 priority; and (iv) the family's complete IDS list, which the fetched page did not render. I have labeled each of those as unverified rather than guessing.

Sources retrieved and relied upon: patents.google.com/patent/US8060435/en (claim text, spec., dates, family, status); portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/CBM2016-00048 (institution 2016‑09‑12; FWD 2017‑09‑01); docketalarm.com case pages for CBM2016‑00047 and CBM2016‑00048 (Paper 5 petition, Paper 43 FWD docket entries); e‑foia.uspto.gov Foia/RetrievePdf, fd2017006958‑05‑13‑2019‑1 (Appeal 2017‑006958: Friesen + Walker; In re Clay; In re Kuhle); patentimages.storage.googleapis.com front pages for US 7,890,416 and US 8,041,626 (reference lists); ipwatchdog.com tag pages (Rule 36 affirmance in Chart Trading Development v. Interactive Brokers).