it uses conversion techniques known in the art i was in the house is not implementing a known business practice the specification makes clear that this improved tool this tool that you interact with a tool for the trader can be run on any conventional computer that can the data can be mapped to the screen in any conventional way but what the invention is about is solving problems with prior our graphical user interface doesn't improve the way a good he operates doesn't it actually it actually does your honor in prior trading systems i'll give you an example given it improves what it displays correct actually or out of the the that invention actually improves the trading interface how does the code change while the code that actually how the code is actually implemented to carry out the tool this inventive tool can probably can be done in different ways what's important is that for example the problem is the gooey code army how does the graphical user interface operating code change so for example your honor in the prior art figure two styles claim there was a problem with accuracy the way that graphical user interface was constructed and it caused the users when they went to click on the figure to style screen and that's their price because the inside market was fixed on a screen the prices would be flipping and so when the trader went to trade the trader would miss her intended price so that's a problem with how this interface was constructed now of course a coder can code that tool in many different ways but that's not what the invention is about the invention is about solving a problem with these prior art interfaces now in c q g the claims require  function is merely what happens when these alleged structures are manipulated by a user why isn't that a valid statement it's not valid your honor because i think what you're referring to i v was referring to the decisions in this case that patents not to solve problems not to solve technical problems with technical solutions for example and i p g too and i b g three this court found that those patents unrelated to this pat so it seems to me you don't have any choice but to agree with us that you were bound by the two presidential opinions and if you can't get around those you can't prevail here so we can paged well that distinguishes the earlier opinions as involving claims when that says quote when the price changes solves the purported problem does not specify what happened so neatly after the last changes and it seems to me that that's true here that the line which for example that worldwide was relied on by the patent didn't have static price didn't have a static price actions which i believe is what you were referring no that's not what i was referring to what what and what the opinion twenty dollars to fifty seven dollars says is even if there's the static right axis that the the claims that it was dealing with there didn't say what happened after the price change and what i'm suggesting to you is that the same thing is true here that it doesn't say anything about what happens after the place changes here's the difference here are the three hundred and seventy four did not require a static price action well that's open to question like she q g claims a static price access that's not sufficient as the question is whether it tells you what happens after the price changes it doesn't include the language  invention features static price levels these are unmoving figures have numerous advantages over the prior are st a trader can visually follow the market movement movement nd and perhaps most important the trader finance and making an offer at the residential decision that's not what he said what he said was that it doesn't tell you what happens after the price changes that's right language that language from the one mapped and that mapping doesn't change when the inside market changes that exact language isn't in the three hundred and eighty two dollars but it doesn't matter because the three d to patent requires a static price i suppose that's the question as to whether the absence of that language does require static there's nothing displayed on the screen so how can it be solving the problem and it doesn't require static because we don't know what happens after the price changes not this that's not what it's that  recognize that the static wind is different in the initial language with talk about what happens after the price changes is what differentiates the two dollars while the core did point out that the that the three there is this mapping limitation but we don't know what happens after i agree with that that's what the court said with respect to the three hundred and seventy four patent i believe the court looking at this three  axis and i am i'm looking at the claims of the three hundred and two again three of the two claims i agree they don't require the mapping they don't require this language of that the prices are mapped at a time when the one on one issue we believe no remember be required because the people have that i'd be failed to show that this pattern is obvious and you are the prior art and we believe that there is no not it's disputed but we believe there's no basis to overturn the p tabs ruling that these claims are not obvious and b with the prior art which is which is an interesting point with respect to obviousness in that least may please the court i respectfully submit that this court's recent presidential decisions and what parties are calling i v g two and i v g three make this a relatively straightforward case for setting that aside i do think the court doesn't have to wade into those waters if we look at c q g for example it's distinguishable from the facts and the patterns here for example appendix thirty eight  mean that we thought that it was incorrectly decided it's the other way around we thought it was correctly decided just didn't write a detailed opinion know what reasoning understood i want to show you why there are some important distinctions with this case opposed to the the displayed the google yes i think that's a that's a good point so the training technology theory of the case is this price flipping that in a prior are when you went to place orders to buy and sell securities you might miss your price because the moment you were attempting to collect the price would change the problem of cancellation orders missing a price was not present in the prior and they haven't adapted their price flipping theory to deal with the cancellation of oars in fact claim one the method claim of the three to patent doesn't have any tree placement of buy or sell orders in it whatsoever so the idea that you're going to miss a price just has no place in the context of claim one secondly if we look at claim want to compare it art there are some important factual differences between this case and c q g so in seeking g the court essentially adopted the findings of the district court in the district court there credited the expert testimony of trading technologies mr thomas mr thomas prices flipping theory we don't have any such credit the testimony in this case of mr thomas the board didn't make that finding in fact it went and made it a different finding for which it had substantial evidence its finding was that taking the market information and displaying it along an axis was a fundamental economic concept that was supported by record evidence including the wife's reference which is in the briefing so we can distinguish the q g on the patents and on the if we go back to seek u g as i read that case to the court there credited the district court's findings the district court found that the particular claims of the one hundred and thirty two and three dollars or four patent solve this price flipping theory among other things that needed the static price access there was some factual findings to make that to make that determination because if you look at the specification of any of the patents in this case the price will be there is not supported by the specification so here the board credited our conflicting evidence on that point that this was a longstanding economic practice again for example weiss and i think the board was on solid footing when it didn't credit the thomas expert declaration that the price the prices aren't displayed if we look for example claim one of the static price axis but some of the depended claim to talk about resetting the axis trading technologies hasn't explained how to reconcile those things given its static price which as i understand their theory is essential axis as the board found that was nothing more than displaying information and that was not a technical problem that said the final decision is twenty seven dollars it's not disputed the priorities have that information in the same dewey the trading information on an supplemental briefing but i think if you look at the way they describe their own invention it's quite clear that what this invention is about is about improving traitor and not the computer for example dr tom and mr thomas j eight thousand nine hundred and sixty three said that knowing the prices will not change at the moment the trader enters in order genders confidence and reduces trader hesitation he continued this allow the trader to intuitively sense market movements thereby enhancing the user's ability to identify and quickly a issues like the claims and i v g two and three these are all about receiving generic market information displaying that on access and allowing the user to interact with that you using conventional input techniques like mouse commands and that the board found that that was a fundamental economic practice we see that weiss if we look at the holdings of i b g two and three it's of the same flavor and i beat you to talk about claims that were straight a new arrangement of generic information that  helps assist traders in processing information that that's the focus is an abstract idea exactly what the claims are about here it's like the claims and i b g three where instead of having price information it was profit and loss information it was displayed this word said that simply displaying new or useful information doesn't take an invention out of the realm of abstract ideas and this pattern is really just like that we had the working orders that information was available and all been done this put it in a new new   rehearing positions from trading technologies but aside from that i understand this to be the last case  them and finally the board was supported by substantial evidence when it john there was no inventive concept as the patent states the inventions are implemented on conventional hardware it talks about the fact that they the programming is insignificant and that this court ought to affirm justify a different position to the different commissions what is the interest of the united states and the complexities of these various cases brought to the courts with different constitutionality of the statute that is our only interest in this in this case and that is the only those are the only matters we briefed so the government's tradition is that this patent he could not come into court is not right under one  attack on the constitutionality of the a and that is the issue in which we've intervened we are not taking a position or in any way suggesting the court can't address the the what i want to shoot pending before it you correct your honor of the government doesn't care if there are all sorts of different results and different tribe you dread or i think the government does have a more general interest in what i won but it has not intervened in this case under section one of forty idea that we don't care there are thousands of decisions issued by the board the director has the ability but is not required to intervene in any appeal from a board decision and we simply have not used that authority here so why not and not simply not authorized to take a position on want to one or any of the merits questions beyond the constitutional matters in this in this case if the court has no questions about either forfeiture or those constitutional matters we're happy to rest on our briefs in th that meant was if a trader had to access that working order they had to navigate to a different window screens if you had two screens you could have them both of them at the same time you could have them open at the same time if you could fit them on your screen i suppose your hon or but still you have to navigate to this working order you have to scroll the flying your order and then the prior art that took multiple actions to cancel this invention has a specific structure where you have the working order the ordered an indicator all along the static price access and paired with single click functionality so you and here's why that's important when you have your order entry tool and you're watching the market aben flow up and down this invention puts your working order right next to that price level and you can quickly get out of the market if you see them out and you know what you're seeing but it does seem to me that that's a different problem than the earlier pags address which had to do with orders and possible means they would be on the phone right absolutely i agree one hundred percent this patent is solving an additional problem from the accuracy problem that i was talking about earlier this is this claim as all of that it has static price access it's got owner entry regions along the static price access when you click to enter an order your working order pops up on the same strength and if you see the market moving around and you need to get out of your position you can single click and get out that was huge i invite you to look at the dock liberations and the record of traders that said this was an amazing improvement over the prior art just that just the single action cancel alone and lastly i'm running out of time here but with respect to the want to one issue if i may here's the root problem with what the other side is saying they're saying our claims are directed to the use of a goo y and a method of placing an order based on displayed market information as well as updating the market information so they're saying that our claims are just displaying market information updating it and sending orders that's not what our claims are directed to if you look at the level of specificity in this claim static price rises order entry region working order along the static price sections that gives you these advantages there is no way you can conclude that this is a fundamental economic practice on a generic computer this functionality didn't exist it's no different than core wireless it's no different than data engine precedential it's decision from this court in fact in the data engine case the court quoted it talked about the core wireless case and said the invention of core wireless spared the users from the time consuming operations of navigating to opening up and then navigating within each s application that's exactly what we have here the system is improved because now everything's in one interface it's improvement it's an improvement over the prior art and under this court's precedent that clearly meets want to one you thank you thank you