these are having more than just a chilling effect on patentability it's a cryogenic the fact that skill and inventive technology invented ideas in the field but even if i agreed with  follow them because that is my job i agree and i will give you a group wherein we can state fully within the bounds of off work cases and come to a conclusion that they're being misapplied in the field of technology specifically represented by these claims the objective of these decisions was a fundamental principle of patent eligibility for an abstract idea because of the fear of monopolization basic tools of science and technology or that instead of the rhetoric just go to the heart of this why is this not an abstract idea it's a claim to a game or at the game of blackjack art is like play not the internet is  actual physical actions on physical material here i was very careful in the drafting the claims to make sure that these were physical playing cards which one which physical steps of very significant into the idea of conventional activity that doesn't transform an abstract idea it transforms at the courage and it puts the abstract idea if this were an abstract idea how to get to that point certain steps all right if an abstract idea something that can be performed by the mind if i were up here i'd say let's play blackjack you have two cards i have two cards i ve of blackjack played on the internet and then you have a generic computer executing software nothing it is in effect i'm not going to argue have a generic type of card i mean you have it you did it and then to new tech of cart with different with different suits with different numbers with different things in them you're using a conventional deck of cards right after grated a new role for blackjack is more than a new way it is a way of using those cards and the values of those cards and a new way has the new rule i mean i'm sorry but if you can come up with thousands and thousands of games using the standard fifty two deck of cards with the four suits you're not inventing a new deck of cards you're inventing a new way of using those cards to come up with a new game how isn't that a quintessential abstract idea it is not an abstract idea because it requires the physical elements of the cards themselves the values of the cards the determination the cards but the random is ation is in fact critical in the play this game when in re web came up here the decision there was based on the fact that all the said was used cards use of the vice or a table really looking for a physical embodiment somewhere they get hands had one that did not rise to the level of the actual fact that this is not abstract because the physical cards are required and being required to be treated in specific physical ma very he's actually transforming the card based on the physical events but that's trivial here i have to randomize a cards which is not trick it can it could just be clear when you say randomized the cards you mean shuffling right creating a yes that is one alternative description for but how different is shuffling from creating random bingo cards with different numbers and regret well in the play of the bingo spades every player at that table knew that was not randomize they knew the outcomes in the events they want to million have dollars and the single few and then the casino which take control of the cards went to court and said the fact of the absence of randomization was so significant that it breached the social contract and the legal contract between the player and the casino not the cards but that the abstract idea be transformed right that's the test and alice has to transformation of the abstract idea not transformation of cards well and the abstract idea he abstract idea here is transform by the presence of the physical cards big patent office implied that if i transformed the in the vidual cards rather than the entire set it might be patentable but the follow that logic that would mean i have to change the numbers in the cards after they were down which would make the game illegal and absurd it is a transformation of this set of cards that in fact is an essential a physical one concept i would like to introduce which is within the scope of the four cases and also the patent office guidelines as well i'd like to refer to as proportionality the objective of the assume that every card game because i grew up playing card games you always shuffle the cards before you play almost any card game that i know of so let's set that off the table i don't find anything very useful about this randomization or shuffle if we accept your logic anytime somebody comes up with a novel and obvious new game of cards it's possible your view that has been done yes and that has been done for many years there are many significant new card games that have been introduced and they'll either fail or succeed but this problem is in applying the standard of avoiding monopol scientific tools and technology and avoiding impeding the development of science and the arts and applying that to a different card game is one  burma nuclear devices a mousetrap will kill the mice but it's not to be socially useful to you when as you can tell we're concerned about your argument about the shuffling transformation do you have another argument on what is transformation or what can be transformative in the claim and also you said that you're going to talk about why the claims were abstract yes the transformer the current is that as i indicated if you did this as an abstract idea and played cards this way with mental cards then you do truly have an abstract idea but the physicality of the cards makes it non abstract and supports transformations concern i an abstract because it is this cool cars with physical identifying features on them they're clearly used and could be required to be used in the claims it is a with physical materials the only way it's abstract and their work would be subject to the prohibition would be in the fact that you are just inventing the numbers and everything in your head by creating a false impression of playing cards mentally and then every game will be a time where every game would be a win if you mentally select the right cards the critical issue  of the system and that critical step of grand amazed randomization even though it does transform the abstract idea of in which the wager is resolved as a whole basically any kind of card game so even though mr lippman can point to patents that issued a long time ago that none of those would be a lot of now that's correct your honor in fact but the government argued in bilski that things like your position is card games using a conventional deck are nonstarter but what about i mean now schiphol or no you know i mean these are maybe not novel whatever but you imagine somebody came up with them today these are card games but based on a with the agency's position be that those are abstract ideas because all games especially card games are on track to ideas or is the agency's position limited to card games using a conventional attack where the agency would apply the used to preallocate we used to say that a computer was enough to bring you into the physical realm and make it happen eligible i mean to the same thing same thing for a deck of playing cards and now that alice has said it's not true for a computer we don't see a way to distinguish the playing cards from the patent office of state its position as an absolute holding the playing cards games or advance in any poor man are not going to be panned but if you look at what he says about the novel that all that is different printing cards used to be that the mere printed time tend one material would not be a basis that might not be there i mean if it's i mean that we might be true if it was a fifty two card back and different different kind of suits or characters things like that if you could invent some kind of new deck that uses only twelve cards or three thousand cards i mean you know there's all kinds of games out there that don't use standard x that you know they may be invalid for other reasons but they're not just printed matter that goes to novelty and on the obviousness but not too abstract idea the abstract well yeah because there may be an abstract idea at the heart of them but by creating and novel and different set of things there if they're taking them out but the problem if you have an abstract idea that you're implementing on a conventional deck of cards yes i would like to get one point across and that is going back to what the objective of the case at the scope of what might be an abstract idea here the rules if you interpret it that way rather than the physical method of implementing a specific physical card game the and potential for damage and monopolizing basic scientific tools is nonexistent i would think that the weight necessary to balance that out to make it pattern eligible should also be proportionately much less thank you very much