substantial characteristic of all it is the problem of written description and as this court has recently stated is that you claimed more than you describe that you don't possess all that you claimed now we're in the record however is there any proof that a person of skill in the art would perceive these claims to for a non blue noise mask method of getting a visually pleasing presentation that's really the issue isn't it that it is i think it is there i see a little in the record i don't see a person of skill in art testifying or any evidence saying oh yes that claim covers a lot more than little it's masks and we would read evidence in the record and the district court said that that did change the result and certainly there have been really scripture cases that this court has decided where there has been expert testimony and better test so it so mr one season is blue  are all characteristics of the threshold mass that's described so by simply saying you need the words blue noise math just just isn't good it doesn't really answer the question we can't just take everything in the a computer claim fourteen recites a computer into two twenty eight claim eight recites a memory claim ten recites a computer since this is a question of subject matter in al how can we say that subject matter of this patent is not eligible when it recites a computer research site the printer even if it and i'm kind of saying doesn't this doctrine go by the pa what the court is saying is that you could look at the math and the numeric earl grey scale representation and see if it's higher or lower in color or being right i suppose and that's not to the transformation i don't prefer it i think they're both equally vile the transformation here is a transformational electronic data and i think it's a very comparable to some of the sports other cases interest litigation in our city went to prove their masks other than blue noise masks the produced dot profiles with substantial characteristics of a blue noise power spectrum ye interrupt you for a moment tonight is is that prior art effective date is that a surrogate for really asking the question does the written description support planes there are certainly is parallel with the written description issue but five and therefore a better argument for r c t certainly concede that but we said it as the judge found that those claims also were to prof because they proper every conceivable type  if one looks at these patterns one will not see a single grid of numbers there is no appendix with the man's there's not a single and by what they do they have this indirect disclosure of masks through a technique for limited to figure two as we've cited in the brief r c t in effect admitted that when they disputed only the results of figure two not the fact that the invention was limited to using the figure two out so well the half years that anyone could ever come up with could be much better and improved and more efficient better mathematical properties now is there anything in the record to lead us to believe that one of skill in the art couldn't with the methods given in the using figure two and yet someone else came along later some scientists came over in wa and figured out a way of calculating an ideal way spare us the properties of figure why they would infringe this claim even though r c t admitted properties when they only had one narrow point is they didn't building on this invention he would be working on the backs of those who had come before why wouldn't we see that but the question is of course whether or not you're patterns universally talk about pixel term unique to the computer printer interface and it talks about grayscale images again a computer type term figure questions and answer some matter question not a question of whether a claim is true rafted i mean if you're going to say that then in the future all i do is go back and put in every preamble any computer  abstract that we don't want anyone to even consider receiving the reward for innovating in this area just as there's there's nothing abstract here is there well vast numbers that compare this fast enough to project an image on a screen if you were doing it by hand on a paper with a pencil you could search so this whole fluid the the coroner said citing to see the c c p a said if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating using a mathematical formula even if the solution is for a specific purpose the well known in the case the it was merely new it was not preempted this doesn't preempt all uses of the mathematical formula well if one remove is if there was a claim here that say take it in scan it read it compare it to appeal noise may ask and print the result that's not this case he would not challenge that under section one was this is these are not computer claims these particular claims not computer claims they're not software players we like computer planes and software planes this is a man this is a purely mathematical play again they have hundreds of claims that we are following you want to watch but as you go broader you take risks there's advantages of go broader they don't have to prove that someone actually used it maybe someone came up with the image compare that serious ones and transmit it  on other grounds is not for this court is the court knows from the parties agreement there are no more issues to be decided the case will not be remanded so whatever defenses microsoft may or preserve or say are not  grounds that will be addressed by district i could briefly address the an escape case i think that's very different than our case on the in the scription in that case the the specification originally mathematics it's an ideal construct and the method is disclosed it want to achieve that goal i'm not sure that anybody has any good but it is certainly the the metric that was