focusing on the second step the idea that a single step even every one of the steps of the patent could be implemented using conventional servers and technology and software has been twice rejected recently by this court once in the bascom case that we discussed in some length of a brief and again shortly after that in a case called amdocs versus open a forty one after twelve obtaining quotes from selected vendors that had already been implemented in the prior art in two different ways one was the central database system that we discussed in our brief a second reference that also implemented obtaining quotes from selected vendors for an attempt to do this was the fast reference that is in this record it's the sky just a little bit at appendix pages fourteen ninety to ninety one and that reference was even closer to our invention because they had a central computer they had vendor computers and they actually selected that enters at the central computer they went out for the vendor computers and and tried to get the quotes in did that reference in a prior appeal of this patent of this court the district court level invalidated our path and this court vacated that holding and the reason it vacated is the inventive step here we already knew to this court that fast did not get the whole quote because since it didn't have the software interface that we're talking about the tight interface it had to just get a price and all the rest of the terms had to be negotiated separately over the network so our inventive step we were saying was look there's an agreed upon abstract to the vendors and get it but because the central computer doesn't know each database structure and on top of that doesn't know which terms go with which problem it's remember selling staplers and selling mortgages are going to be different material terms unless you have this set of tightly coupled software interfaces that you put in there you can't get all the contractually material terms of this court held that sufficient to vacate the summary judgment below and with that so that was look this essentially other ways to put the same inventive concept the same abstract idea on computer systems one way is the central database use one database and the vendors upload in advance you still implement that abstract idea on a of a set of tightly coupled interfaces that are prearranged in advance to know in advance curial terms of each product and how when and what format they are stored in each vendor database and it just talks of the using and that's another reason why we would never claim that the software was invented because the software exist it talks about doing it in our patent it in several places one one place that i can point to right now this is database and that's a different way of doing it than making the vendor upload all those terms in advance to a single database like the work of reference or and as a fast reference only being able to pull the a central database for a fast type system is the invective concept and again even when kayak in there alice created said well you're just using standard shafir to do this interface we never i didn't dennis what i said there i mean that just the fact that it can get done for that mistake what i said is the advent of step two is the fact that i have gotten this information through the use of that interface whereas the prior art has gotten this information from a single central database that we've choir's uploading of advance and whereas the other prior art can't get the full information it requires a subsequent exchange of more information represents a specific technical solution so i understand your argument today but i don't necessarily know how i can find this fact finding which actor who for an abuse of discretion that to look at what you said here and say could the reasonable fact finder in this case come to this conclusion is there substantial evidence and what you say for the conclusion that you were lying on the software from attempt to reasons are on a first of all the finding the part of which the exceptional case is based is that the other supposition contradicted the morcha the paragraph you just read is copied from my more brief it's copied from a number t there are other ways to do this without using the pretty distributed software tied interface and number true that we solve the technical problem by rearranging the components like basket nowhere in either of those arguments does it say we've got this specialist software and that's the improvement is better than some other software that's novel that the trial judge confused what we were arguing which was the use of the software as opposed to two other ways of doing it with the idea that the software itself was something novel or patentable we never said that we always agreed upfront that the software was readily avail even the captain says that i didn't like it maybe in the port i cited it too before we always agreed it was just is is that in his alice brief he just didn't say anything to the contrary and thus since this entire deal board is predicated on supposedly an inconsistency between the mark of an opinion and the that's the only thing it's predicated on the entire exceptional case finding is predicated on this can you just jump right to that address why that fact finding is in fact supported by substantial evidence and if you disagree with anything i said please correct well that there is  the circumstances that the court did consider and they were all in courts mind what else did the court articulate as its basic court articulated the flip flopping between what went on during a marked man indefiniteness argument in the alice argument on the specialized british tributes and then at the inconsistency is subtle but it's apparent from the papers and the only thing they say is this i agree with you that's of course subtle but there are so so it's not just generalized flip flopping right it's not what cited they didn't say you flip flop on the time you're a chameleon you're constantly citing a wrong thing not in this fact finding for exceptional case they didn't say anything like that did they know that inside the court did not say that this is not based on litigation conduct generally it's based on a specific inconsistency well that's what the court referenced in its decision i agree in the specific inconsistency and that's you what would have what happened is s s t found it self in a position on one hundred one late in the case with the change law of else alice made clear that if you have an abstract idea then in a computer software environment which this this claim is that simply claiming generic software to implement that abstract idea is not going to satisfy step two is not going to give you eligible subject matter that was clear assessed he was faced with that and in the alice motion in its opposition to the alice motion prior art as if he cited to those then in its arguments although it's talking about preemption you know and i think in a in a way to avoid really that's the flat alice requirement that if you're going to get past the abstract going to show the abstract idea you have to show it's implemented with something other than generic software and the implementation that s s pete pointed to was the previous tributed software that pretty straight bit software is cited not only on page  here alice argument on the special nature of the software the citation that each of the claims that issue here the second full paragraph on the page each of the claims that issue here requires the system footnote for explaining the requirement for the specialized predefined software interface to solve the database can keep compatibility problems over the prior art so and i'm going on to cite another portion of the reexamin ation i guess this is this is pretty flimsy as far as i can tell pretty flimsy i don't know that it's so flimsy that i can overturn the lower court but in terms of claiming that this amounts to a direct conflict with the market in brief this particular language and in the best likely only good language i think is important just one granted there is a slight to the footnote there for at fourteen seventy five but anyway if you don't even articulate the footnote they don't even use the no small ta if this judge is an experienced judge made a lot of that increase is no doubt you do but apart from that you're saying you saw in this case he didn't cite anything that went on in this case he cited this one contradiction as the basis for his exceptional case finding not make it fact finding it indicates there was an overall course of conduct litigation misconduct or abuse of this courtroom where this is the worst case i've seen in thirty years kind of thing which we do see in these exceptional  by some of them of course and this one that's not what the judge was relying on the judge was relying on this particular flip flop because it was at a pivotal point in the case and s s t when faced with alice and now faced with alice motion it had to deal with alex but he placed a tire exceptional case finding on a single flip flop by understand your argument that it's a pivotal point in the case but a single flip flop so i'm trying to make sure the really is a flip flop because usually we have a course of conduct usually it's a lot attending single misrepresentation and what or inconsistent statement and i guess what i'm struggling with is where precisely you think it's the most poignant evidence in their analysis brief that indicates there software as a critical component to overcome the alice yes very on page fourteen seventy nine of the offenders is a carry over paragraph and i won't read the whole thing you know me which part you interface problem as the known technical problem citing footnote for among other appendix sites and then stating far from claiming any generic computerized version of the method the three to eight file shows the method was already computerized in a specific inventive concept was added to overcome a technical database problem specific inventive concept argued during the reexamination was that the idea implementation was stated very clearly by dr poncho in his declaration that the implementation was well known and in use for many years so used to talking about implementation meanings which would normally fail alice and they're not trying to say it makes stuff too because of the specific programming but just because it's such a fantastic abstract idea it in itself and then i mean that argument is never going to win in most cases but it seems like that's what they're arguing about the specific combination of data and information that they were going to get through this conventional software program so innovative that nobody had ever thought of it that it should be eligible under alice that article that doesn't seem to be inconsistent with the market right where they said it would be easy to program this idea if it is inconsistent because the very statement again there are two parts to alex is step one and step two we all know that step one was conceded now faced with step two had to show something under alice that showed it was not generic software alice said i think you're getting stuck into wrong i don't think step two means you have to show something if we're in software realm that it's not generic software i think you have to show that for some reason the abstract idea is otherwise innovative and it's technological advancement and it's still eligible despite the fact that it can be a programmer using conventional software respectfully judge who is i that one point your honor that that one point that's step one is if it's abstract then generic software is going to do it says that as i read it on one thirty four supreme court twenty three fifty two i know there's other argument rely more on the apparent conflict and i'm not sure i see them very well in the district court did and in its discretion it pointed to a specific places that saw that apparent conflict and i do submit under the two step analysis of alice and comparing that to what was said in markman it is a clear contradiction and there when when you look at the poncho i will register court says the contradiction is subtle he didn't think it was subtle of the idea he says the implementation of the idea is known to one of ordinary sculley art known as someone with a basic software rap background and known for years so that implementation is something that he was relied on in the places i cited to in the argument in the brief and it's an it's one to one argument and the sea was faced with that and had to try to come up with an idea i mean a concept to get around alice instead of facing alice it would tried this effort to take that implementation and say that that implementation didn't preempt but that implementation did get over the prior art and that was a says he's effort on alice doesn't stand on good ground for doing that on this appeal from the exceptional case determination so it you know to sum up with the short time i have left in this case is and you sort of discretion standard and as judge moore recognize it's a highly deferential standard of review and indeed deference to the trial court is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review and a trial court here saw the record read the record heard the arguments considered all the facts and all the law and made a determination that in its view it was a contradiction please bring your appendix up with you you told me that fourteen seventy one appendix that paragraph that i was asking you about which is what the district court site offering the inconsistency was cut and paste i think those were your words y are you talking about page one hundred of the appendix is that the portion of the mark membrey you so far referencing that it was cut and paste portions were cut and pasted from one hundred through one of two and you're right if i could complete the thought  have stood up here pointed you to the use of the specialized software to do the database interface in the alice is the inconsistent statement if you read just one hundred and one or two of the appendix it also talks about the use of the specialized s i'm sorry i'm asking you to justify the statement you made an oral argument which i think to be factually accurate as you stood in front of me in oral argument and suggested that what appears in fourteen seventy one percent is language i was questioning you about was identically present in your marketing brief and therefore how could you possibly have said something contradictory when you cut and pasted it from your march from a brief in in to your alice creed and i'm looking at the pages of your marketing brief and i see of the figure at page one hundred an important aspect of the three to eight invention is the special interface labeled above so we definitely tweaked it i should not have said that it wasn't tweaked and i even said in the brief that it was copied and then to a patent requires some additional software to set up interfaces between the central computer and database computers and all i intended to say was that the same stuff was copied and then maybe you know word smith in the alice but the stuff that mr