Claimed Subject Matter:
Electronic trading – system for settling over the counter trades.
Whether a trade will be settled bilaterally or through clearing depends on the preferences of the party to accept the offer. If the party making the offer has bilateral trading closed with a particular counterparty and the counterparty does not permit cleared trading of the product, the product will show up as red on the trading screen. If trading is possible, the product offer will show up as white. The colour coding acts as a means for indicating whether trading is possible while preserving the parties’ anonymity.
The Board confirmed that business aspects of an electronic exchange, such as parties’ trading preferences, do not constitute a technical contribution and, thus, do not enter into the examination for an inventive step.
However, displaying data indicative of the availability or unavailability of a computer-implemented function may be considered as a technical feature independent of any cognitive or aesthetic aspect of its presentation and independent of any business aspect of the underlying computer-implemented function. The technical character of the implementation of such an indication is not wiped out by its commercial goal.
Despite this, a feature of binary colour coding, as found in the claim in question was, in the technical context of user terminals, a notorious way of indicating the availability or unavailability of a computer-implemented function. In addition, there could be an argument that it related to a presentation of information as such.
The appellant also made reference to a granted case in the field of transaction data processing. The Board dismissed this – a granted patent is not a case law precedent and so should not be commented on or compared with the case in question.