[00:00:00] Speaker 04: Before we get started, just a little bit of housekeeping. [00:00:07] Speaker 04: Since the attorneys on the first three cases are the same and the issues, I think, are relatively similar, instead of doing them separately, let's just do them all together. [00:00:17] Speaker 04: I'll give you 20 minutes per side. [00:00:19] Speaker 04: If it looks like we need more, I'll be flexible. [00:00:21] Speaker 04: But I don't expect we will. [00:00:26] Speaker 04: I don't know how that adjusts your rebuttal time. [00:00:28] Speaker 04: I'm not going to be super strict since we're doing this. [00:00:32] Speaker 04: So we'll just hear from Mr. Gannon, Mr. Pickard, and then you on rebuttal again. [00:00:37] Speaker 04: And if the constitutional issue comes up, we'll hear from the Justice Department. [00:00:42] Speaker 04: If it doesn't, I don't think we need to hear from you. [00:00:45] Speaker 04: We'll wait to see what he has to say. [00:00:47] Speaker 04: And then the case involving the solicitor's office at the end, we'll do separately and hear from the person from the solicitor's office. [00:00:55] Speaker 04: Any questions about that? [00:00:56] Speaker 04: when you're ready. [00:01:27] Speaker 05: I'd like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal. [00:01:30] Speaker 04: So 10 minutes now and then 10 minutes for rebuttal? [00:01:32] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, 10 minutes. [00:01:33] Speaker 04: 10 minutes for rebuttal total. [00:01:37] Speaker 04: OK. [00:01:38] Speaker 04: I'm giving you 20 minutes overall instead of 15. [00:01:43] Speaker 04: So do you want to? [00:01:44] Speaker 04: I'm not giving you. [00:01:46] Speaker 04: 20 minutes to go now and then extra time. [00:01:49] Speaker 05: OK, I appreciate that. [00:01:50] Speaker 05: Five minutes for a lot of that. [00:01:51] Speaker 04: Again, if it looks like we need extra time and there are a lot of questions, I'm not going to be super strict today because of this last minute change, but in the interest of moving things along. [00:02:04] Speaker 05: OK, may it please the court. [00:02:06] Speaker 05: I'd like to start with the 768 patent. [00:02:09] Speaker 05: The 768 patent is a continuation of the patents that were at issue in the CQG case. [00:02:17] Speaker 05: And in this court's first decision in February 23rd of 2019, I'll be referring to that as IBG 1. [00:02:26] Speaker 05: In that first decision from this court, the court found that those four patents are technological inventions that are not subject to CBM review. [00:02:35] Speaker 05: The 768. [00:02:36] Speaker 04: That's the non-precedential decision, right? [00:02:38] Speaker 05: Correct. [00:02:39] Speaker 04: Since then, we've had two presidential decisions that treat your kind of family of patents differently. [00:02:45] Speaker 05: So in the second decision, which I'll call IBG 2, this court dealt with another continuation patent, a 374 patent. [00:02:54] Speaker 05: That was a presidential opinion. [00:02:56] Speaker 05: The 768 patent at issue here is the same as, for purposes of CBM, the first group of patents in IBG 1. [00:03:05] Speaker 05: It's different than the claims at issue in the 374 patent. [00:03:11] Speaker 05: And so although the first decision is non-precedential, we believe that that decision, in terms of uniformity from this court, in terms of what this court has said about those inventions, is highly relevant, even though not precedential. [00:03:28] Speaker 05: So in the 768 patent, [00:03:33] Speaker 05: solves the exact same problem that was at issue with the patents in IBG 1, and that is user trading with respect to the GUI, the prices are coming in from the exchange, and the trader had a problem with missing his or her price. [00:03:50] Speaker 05: That was a technical problem with the prior art displays. [00:03:54] Speaker 04: How is that a technical problem as opposed to a problem with how the trader processes information? [00:04:02] Speaker 05: It's a technical problem because the problem results from how the figure two style screen was constructed. [00:04:10] Speaker 05: It was a grid format and information was on the grid and information on that grid is coming from the exchange. [00:04:18] Speaker 05: The user has no control over that information and so the prices are changing in these grids. [00:04:24] Speaker 04: But isn't that true? [00:04:26] Speaker 05: Without a grid system like yours if the traders getting information from some other way not with respect It's not with respect to the 768 claims because the 768 claims are very specifically recited To create a tool a GUI tool that solves that problem through the claimed elements of the 768 [00:04:48] Speaker 05: So again, the problem in these patents, the problem with the prior RGUI, the price is flipping. [00:04:55] Speaker 05: The 768 claims solve that problem specifically by providing fixed order entry locations that correspond to price levels and then continue to correspond to those price levels even if there's a change in the market. [00:05:10] Speaker 05: So in other words, the way the claim is set up, [00:05:13] Speaker 05: is that if you have a change in the market, this information is coming from the exchange, and if you have changes in the prices, the way the GUI tool is constructed, you will not miss your price because the price corresponds to the graphical location. [00:05:28] Speaker 04: But isn't that just exactly what the previous two opinions described as making the trader more efficient and making the trader have better information, which those cases found ineligible, as opposed to, as an infish, making the computer operate more efficiently? [00:05:46] Speaker 05: With respect to the 374 patent in IBG 2, which is, again, a continuation patent, the court found that that claim was too broad. [00:05:56] Speaker 05: that that claim didn't provide any display of price information. [00:06:00] Speaker 05: And so the court said how could it be solving the missing the price problem because the claims to open ended. [00:06:07] Speaker 05: Where this claim is not, this claim is very specifically recites [00:06:12] Speaker 05: The prices are displayed. [00:06:14] Speaker 05: You have indicators. [00:06:15] Speaker 04: Sure, but I don't think that's answering my question, which is not whether it's open-ended or not, but whether what you're trying to argue as a technical improvement and patent eligible is a tool that makes the trader more efficient, gives the trader better information, is a better graphical display, which seems to me to fall into the group of cases, not just in [00:06:36] Speaker 04: the prior two trading tech cases, but a lot of other cases from this court interpreting Alice in 101 as just different ways to display and organize data instead of an actual improvement in computer technology. [00:06:49] Speaker 05: Your Honor, we believe that that statement, when you have an improved software that makes the trading system better, that is an improvement in the trading system. [00:07:00] Speaker 05: Of course, it has benefits to the trader, [00:07:05] Speaker 05: What do you mean when you say trading system? [00:07:08] Speaker 05: What I mean by the trading systems, let me be very specific. [00:07:11] Speaker 05: This claim is directed to the software that creates a new tool, a new graphical user interface that the trader interacts with. [00:07:20] Speaker 05: The GUI tool, the GUI is the front end of the trading system. [00:07:24] Speaker 05: Just like in a cockpit, the GUI that the pilot interacts with. [00:07:29] Speaker 05: That's part of the trading system. [00:07:30] Speaker 05: And so when you're improving that graphical user interface, [00:07:34] Speaker 05: And you're making it so that the trader doesn't miss his or her price. [00:07:38] Speaker 05: You're improving the trading interface. [00:07:41] Speaker 02: But that's not improving the functionality of the computer system. [00:07:46] Speaker 02: It's just improving the operator's ability to effectuate an order. [00:07:54] Speaker 05: The trader is provided a benefit. [00:07:59] Speaker 05: I don't doubt that for a minute. [00:08:03] Speaker 02: I think you're absolutely right. [00:08:05] Speaker 02: But I don't know that that really is an improvement on or an adjustment to the actual functionality of the computer system. [00:08:15] Speaker 02: It just makes it easier for the trader. [00:08:20] Speaker 05: The software that's run on this system doesn't make the trader faster, doesn't make the trader better. [00:08:28] Speaker 05: The trader is just the trader. [00:08:29] Speaker 04: Well, sure it makes the trader better because he can more accurately peg his or her price and get the stock or whatever at the price he wants rather than overpaying. [00:08:39] Speaker 05: But my point is it doesn't change the trader herself. [00:08:43] Speaker 05: Does it change the way the computer functions? [00:08:45] Speaker 05: It does change the way the software is constructed. [00:08:50] Speaker 05: It does change how the trading system operates. [00:08:54] Speaker 05: Yes, it does, because the GUI, the graphical user interface that the trader is interacting with, is improved over the prior graphical user interface. [00:09:04] Speaker 05: It's no different than Core Wireless, which was a graphical user interface. [00:09:09] Speaker 05: It was an improvement to the interface. [00:09:11] Speaker 05: Of course, it had benefits to the user. [00:09:13] Speaker 05: Same thing with Data Engine. [00:09:15] Speaker 05: uh... presidential opinion. [00:09:17] Speaker 05: Data Engine was a GUI case where it was an improved GUI, it was an improved arrangement with tabs. [00:09:24] Speaker 05: It improved, of course it made it better for the user because the user could access these spreadsheets, but the improvement was in the software, it was in the interface. [00:09:34] Speaker 04: That's what makes it technological. [00:09:35] Speaker 04: But it seems, full wireless, I mean it seems to me that that falls much more in line with Infish, where it was actually changing the way a database or the way a spreadsheet program works. [00:09:46] Speaker 04: that improved the efficiency of the computer's operation rather than, again, I don't mean to harp on this, improving the efficiency of the trader's decision making. [00:09:57] Speaker 05: So the, in Data Engine, just to be very clear, in Data Engine, the tabs on the graphical user interface that made it so that the user could access more information [00:10:12] Speaker 05: We believe that's very analogous to this situation where you have an improved graphical user interface that causes it so that the trader doesn't miss his or her price. [00:10:24] Speaker 05: There's no distinction between the two. [00:10:27] Speaker 03: But that provided a different functionality and greatly simplified the ability to move from one page to the next. [00:10:34] Speaker 05: So in Data Engine, just to be clear, in Data Engine, that invention, that software invention could be run on any computer. [00:10:43] Speaker 05: It doesn't matter what type of computer. [00:10:46] Speaker 05: It was the front end that made the user be able to interact with the computing system in a better way. [00:10:52] Speaker 05: I don't see the difference between that and having an improved front interface for trading, where you're making it so that the trader has benefits in speed and accuracy. [00:11:04] Speaker 05: In other words, when a trader goes to trade, the trader may have a trading strategy, but the invention has nothing to do with that. [00:11:14] Speaker 05: The invention all has to do with the interface, the improvement to the interface. [00:11:21] Speaker 05: Problem with the prior art gooey in terms of missing your price That was found again in the IBG one case the four patents that issue in that case [00:11:31] Speaker 05: It was found in the CQG case, that was a 101 case, where this court said that the four patents that's improved GUI is improving computer functionality. [00:11:42] Speaker 05: This court's already said it in the CQG case. [00:11:45] Speaker 05: That was a 101 case. [00:11:47] Speaker 05: And then in IBG 1, this court looked at those findings and said, yes, that's a technical improvement to the GUI. [00:11:55] Speaker 05: It improves speed and accuracy. [00:11:57] Speaker 05: So this court has already filed it. [00:11:58] Speaker 05: You continue to argue these non-precedential opinions. [00:12:02] Speaker 05: which are probably wrong, and wrongly decided anyway. [00:12:05] Speaker 05: But in any event, they're irrelevant. [00:12:07] Speaker 05: Your Honor, I respectfully disagree. [00:12:09] Speaker 05: I think that a decision from this Court, multiple decisions from this Court, that these patents solve technical problems with technical solutions, that our clients and the public should be entitled to rely on those opinions, whether they're precedential or not. [00:12:26] Speaker 05: Well, you can rely on opinions until they're overruled by a presidential opinion. [00:12:31] Speaker 05: Well, Your Honor, again, for uniformity, CQG, technological invention. [00:12:38] Speaker 05: IBG 1, this court said the same thing. [00:12:42] Speaker 05: This is not a CBM. [00:12:43] Speaker 05: These are technological inventions. [00:12:45] Speaker 05: That's this court saying it twice. [00:12:48] Speaker 05: And the point with respect to the 768 is that if you look at the claims of the 768, they are no different than, for example, the claims of the 411 patent, which was at issue in IBG 1. [00:13:01] Speaker 04: But since then, in two presidential decisions, we've ruled a whole bunch of other of your claims to be ineligible under 101. [00:13:10] Speaker 04: And those presidential decisions are binding on us, and we have to figure out how to distinguish them. [00:13:16] Speaker 05: Exactly right, Your Honor. [00:13:17] Speaker 05: I agree with you that one patent in what we call IBG 2 [00:13:22] Speaker 05: that dealt with a 3-7-4 patent. [00:13:25] Speaker 05: That was a continuation, just like all these other patents we're talking about in CQG and IBG-1. [00:13:31] Speaker 05: And the court there found that those claims were just way too broad. [00:13:37] Speaker 04: It said more than that these are just too broad. [00:13:41] Speaker 04: I mean, it went in more detail about why they're not technical inventions and why they're just improving trader efficiency and not computer efficiency. [00:13:51] Speaker 05: Well, there were three patents at issue in that case. [00:13:56] Speaker 05: One was a direct continuation of what we're talking about, the patents at issue in CQG and IBG1. [00:14:04] Speaker 05: In that case, the court said, OK, does this 374 patent solve the problem of missing your price, which this court already found is a technical problem in IBG1 and in CQG? [00:14:18] Speaker 05: And the court said, look, I'm looking at this claim. [00:14:21] Speaker 05: I don't see any price information displayed. [00:14:23] Speaker 05: There's no indicators. [00:14:25] Speaker 05: There's no price information. [00:14:26] Speaker 05: There's no quantity. [00:14:28] Speaker 05: And we were asked at the hearing, how can this claim be solving the missing the price problem when you're not displaying anything on the screen? [00:14:36] Speaker 04: So I don't mean to interrupt you, but you're a couple of minutes away from your rebuttal time. [00:14:40] Speaker 04: Is there anything else you want to move on to, or do you want to stick with this claim? [00:14:45] Speaker 05: Your Honor, I think I would like to, just real briefly, the 055 patent. [00:14:55] Speaker 05: The 055 patent is a continuation and part of the patent that we're talking about. [00:15:02] Speaker 05: So the base patents, again, solve this accuracy problem, speed and accuracy problem, which actually resulted in an additional problem. [00:15:10] Speaker 05: And that is that the inside market could leave the screen. [00:15:14] Speaker 05: And so the 055 patent is a very specific solution to that problem to keep the inside market on the screen. [00:15:22] Speaker 05: So the issue that you had with the first set of patents that we were talking about is the inside market can move relative to the price axis. [00:15:30] Speaker 05: And the problem was that the inside market could leave the screen. [00:15:34] Speaker 05: And so the 055 patent has a very specific solution to that. [00:15:39] Speaker 05: It basically says the user can adjust the number of price levels and then the computer figures out where, when the inside market gets close to the top or bottom of the screen, it issues an automatic repositioning command to keep the inside market on the screen. [00:15:58] Speaker 05: And that is solving a problem with [00:16:01] Speaker 05: prior ARC GUIs. [00:16:03] Speaker 05: It clearly meets 101. [00:16:04] Speaker 04: I mean, my difficulty with your argument is you keep referring to solving a problem with prior ARC GUIs as if that makes it patent eligible. [00:16:15] Speaker 04: But that presupposes those prior ARC GUIs themselves were patent eligible. [00:16:19] Speaker 04: And to the extent all they do is organize and display data, they seem to fall really right with our case law, a lot of it that says that stuff is not patent eligible under [00:16:31] Speaker 05: So here's the difference, Your Honor. [00:16:32] Speaker 05: As this court said in CQG, the four patents that we're talking about, the four patents in the 768, this court said these inventions are not just organizing data. [00:16:43] Speaker 05: It's not just putting trading data on a screen. [00:16:46] Speaker 04: I mean, can you try to answer one of these questions without referring to one of those non-precedential opinions? [00:16:51] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:16:51] Speaker 04: Because I think you can suspect that you're not getting a lot of traction by repeatedly referencing those. [00:16:59] Speaker 05: The reason why these are improvements is because the claims recite a specific solution to the problems. [00:17:09] Speaker 05: These are classic problems with GUIs, speed, accuracy. [00:17:13] Speaker 05: That's why this court found what it said, the reason why the court came down the way it did. [00:17:18] Speaker 05: The court said, you know, these patents are special. [00:17:20] Speaker 05: These patents, you have a problem with accuracy, you have a problem with speed, those are classic technical problems. [00:17:29] Speaker 05: OK. [00:17:29] Speaker 04: And that was right. [00:17:30] Speaker 04: I think we have your argument. [00:17:31] Speaker 04: I mean, you're back to arguing those non-presidential cases. [00:17:35] Speaker 04: Let's hear from the other side. [00:17:36] Speaker 04: I'll give you the full five minutes back on the rebuttal. [00:17:48] Speaker 00: Good morning. [00:17:49] Speaker 00: Byron Picard on behalf of the appellee. [00:17:52] Speaker 00: May it please the court. [00:17:53] Speaker 00: I would like to start with the 768 patent. [00:17:56] Speaker 00: Mr. Gannon. [00:17:57] Speaker 00: mentioned this notion of a problem that was allegedly solved by the 768 patent, so-called mispriced problem. [00:18:05] Speaker 00: The board has rejected that problem as being solved by the claims of the 768 patent. [00:18:11] Speaker 00: That is a fact finding. [00:18:12] Speaker 00: It did it both in the CVM eligibility issues and in the 101 issues, and we know it's a fact finding because [00:18:18] Speaker 00: You won't find any discussion of the missed price problem in the 768 patent. [00:18:22] Speaker 00: They had to make that theory out with the extrinsic evidence of their expert, Mr. Thomas. [00:18:28] Speaker 00: If you look at the 768 patent, what it's really focused on, it talks in the background section about the time-consuming nature of electronic trading and how 80% of it is consumed by this last step where the trader reads the prices that are displayed and then enters a trade. [00:18:48] Speaker 00: And according to the patent, that was time consuming because the earlier GUIs were not intuitive in terms of the trader appreciating how the prices were displayed. [00:18:57] Speaker 00: And when they went to trade, they had to do a number of keystrokes. [00:19:00] Speaker 00: So the 768 solves that according to the patent. [00:19:04] Speaker 00: And if you read the briefs, by providing this displaying data along an axis showing indicators of where the inside market is, [00:19:12] Speaker 00: and allowing traders to execute orders with a single click. [00:19:15] Speaker 00: It's not about the missed price. [00:19:16] Speaker 00: And we know that because the access in the 768 patent can move at any moment. [00:19:21] Speaker 00: So that instant that the trader goes to send a trade order, that access can move and he or she may miss her price. [00:19:27] Speaker 00: But don't take my word for it. [00:19:29] Speaker 00: If we look at Mr. Thomas, he described sort of two key features that you'll see in the blue brief. [00:19:33] Speaker 00: This relative movement of the indicators and these so-called fixed locations. [00:19:37] Speaker 00: Here's what their expert Mr. Thomas said. [00:19:39] Speaker 00: This is, forgive me, get the pen sight for you. [00:19:48] Speaker 00: This is at the appendix at 8358. [00:19:50] Speaker 00: He was discussing the relative movement of the indicators. [00:19:53] Speaker 00: Quote, this movement, which provides users with an intuitive feel for the behavior of the market for the product, is not present in conventional dynamic screens. [00:20:03] Speaker 00: That is, that feature improves the trader. [00:20:06] Speaker 00: It does not improve the functioning of the computer. [00:20:09] Speaker 00: He continued elsewhere at 8364 in the appendix to say, also, the relative movement of the indicators along the price axis allowed the trader to intuitively sense market movements. [00:20:19] Speaker 00: Again, we're improving the trader. [00:20:21] Speaker 00: And then when he discussed the fixed locations that are at the heart of solving the problem, which the board has projected, he said fixed locations, pardon me, the user, as a result of them, has more confidence in obtaining the desired price, even if the inside market is changing. [00:20:35] Speaker 00: That's at 8358. [00:20:37] Speaker 00: And he said that it results in a less hesitant trader. [00:20:40] Speaker 00: That was at 83, 64. [00:20:43] Speaker 00: All of these features are about improving the trader. [00:20:45] Speaker 00: This is squarely within the main theme of last month's two presidential decisions, that trading GUIs that improve the trader but don't improve the functioning of the computer are eligible for CBM review and not eligible for pathing. [00:20:57] Speaker 00: fall squarely within that. [00:20:59] Speaker 00: Quickly on the 055, that's a continuation part. [00:21:02] Speaker 00: I think it's important to have the right context for that patent. [00:21:06] Speaker 00: The only thing it does is automatically re-center the axis. [00:21:09] Speaker 00: If we look at the second presidential decision from last month, the 556, it also built on an admitted prior art GUI and substituted profit and loss information for strict price information. [00:21:21] Speaker 00: The 055 is no different. [00:21:24] Speaker 00: Instead of showing the user [00:21:26] Speaker 00: segment of the axis where the inside market is not displayed, it automatically displays information that the patentee has described as the most important information for the trader. [00:21:35] Speaker 00: All of this is about improving the trader, providing intuitive understanding of information. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: We submit that the board's decisions in all three cases ought to be affirmed for those reasons. [00:21:47] Speaker 00: I'll let you have the questions. [00:22:08] Speaker 05: So let me return to the problem with prior art GUIs. [00:22:12] Speaker 05: With the prior art GUIs, that what the trader thought he or she was getting her intended price. [00:22:18] Speaker 05: Judge Lynn asked you before how it improved the computer, and you answered, you didn't answer that part of the question. [00:22:25] Speaker 05: How does it improve the computer? [00:22:27] Speaker 05: It improves the computer by improving the graphical user interface. [00:22:33] Speaker 05: The trader using the prior systems, the prior GUIs, had a problem the way that GUI was arranged. [00:22:42] Speaker 05: And here's the problem. [00:22:44] Speaker 05: When the trader went to go click on a price, the price could change. [00:22:48] Speaker 05: The rug could get pulled out from under the trader. [00:22:51] Speaker 05: That was a problem with electronic trading caused by the front end of the trading system. [00:22:57] Speaker 05: And this court... But it doesn't do anything to the computer. [00:23:00] Speaker 05: The computer is there. [00:23:02] Speaker 05: It's been built with a certain capacity, a certain ability for speed, and it's just a question of how you tell it to do it. [00:23:08] Speaker 05: That's right. [00:23:09] Speaker 05: And that's not improving the computer. [00:23:10] Speaker 05: And a data engine? [00:23:11] Speaker 05: A computer has a capacity that when it's reached that you go to a supercomputer. [00:23:17] Speaker 05: But this software doesn't do anything to improve the computer. [00:23:20] Speaker 05: It just uses it as it sits there and is ready to be used. [00:23:25] Speaker 05: That's true. [00:23:25] Speaker 05: The invention can be used on conventional computers, but that's missing the invention. [00:23:31] Speaker 05: The invention is traders had a problem with the interface. [00:23:34] Speaker 05: They missed their price from the rug being pulled out for them as a result of the prices changing. [00:23:41] Speaker 05: This particular claim and all of the claims in CQG and IPG-1 set forth the specific structure, makeup and functionality [00:23:50] Speaker 05: They have order entry fixed order entry locations corresponding the price levels so that when the market changes you still get your price That's an accuracy problem. [00:24:03] Speaker 05: That's a classic technical problem in these prior art gooey's this invention solves that problem Again this patent if you compare this patent to the 411 patent that was found to not to be Technological and not a CBM if you look at this patent. [00:24:19] Speaker 05: It's actually narrower [00:24:21] Speaker 05: than the 411 patent in terms of the language that it uses. [00:24:25] Speaker 05: The 411 patent talks about speed and accuracy because you have indicators moving relative to the price axis. [00:24:33] Speaker 05: This patent actually requires fixed order entry locations corresponding to price levels such that when you go to make a trade, if the inside market moves, the price won't flip out from under you. [00:24:47] Speaker 05: That's solving the problem in the prior [00:24:50] Speaker 02: It sounds to me like you're arguing that even though the computer itself is going to function the same way, every time you have a newer, different interface that allows the trader to interact with that computer in a different way, [00:25:11] Speaker 02: That is an improved functionality. [00:25:16] Speaker 05: I wouldn't say that, Your Honor. [00:25:17] Speaker 05: I wouldn't say that every change to a GUI results in an improvement. [00:25:22] Speaker 02: It sounds to me like that's what you're arguing. [00:25:24] Speaker 05: No, let me just be very clear. [00:25:26] Speaker 05: In this particular case, the 768, [00:25:29] Speaker 05: It's actually solving a specific problem, speed, accuracy problem. [00:25:34] Speaker 05: So we're not saying that, hey, if you come up with a claim and you just add a conventional GUI to do some type of trading, that that would be technological. [00:25:45] Speaker 02: I don't mean to interrupt, but when you say it solves the problem of speed, accuracy, et cetera, [00:25:53] Speaker 05: Speed and accuracy of the of the traders interaction with the computer It's actually the speed of the trader how fast the trader can react has not the speed of the computer It's it's it's the problem is the way the prior art screens were set up The in the grid system with the price is changing that created the problem [00:26:17] Speaker 05: Not how fast the user was. [00:26:19] Speaker 05: The user could be the fastest trader in the world and click as fast as they could. [00:26:23] Speaker 05: But the problem is when that data's coming from the exchange, those prices in the sell flip out right before you make a trade. [00:26:30] Speaker 05: That's a problem with the software that was solved by this invention. [00:26:38] Speaker 04: There are no other questions? [00:26:40] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:26:40] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:26:42] Speaker 04: The cases will be submitted. [00:26:44] Speaker 04: We'll take a minute to swap around. [00:26:46] Speaker 04: Miss Allen, you might as well stay there in case we have questions for you in the next round.