y level concepts and fund those claims and abstract ideas because of high level contracts where abstract so this like circular logic basically but i have to say in this case the district court had made a very sorrow analysis that went beyond simply the broad statement that she started with for each pat claims were directed to and then proceeded to look specifically at the essential elements in those claims and it does doesn't seem to me that were any of these patents the analysis done improvement to a computer functionality that we have pad an eligible claim under in fish and a lot of the cases so to us there are two components in this test th directed to organizing and viewing data on the network in a reduced civil hierarchy and then went on to talk about the claim recites three major steps and she talks about each of those three major steps i have it seems to me that's that's exactly what she was supposed to do under the state of affairs that we find ourselves in an concurrent access by multiple users of the same folder structure so achieve that single virtual machine is like a single virtual machine so that's important improvement  amodeo you want to be in the reduced form so occupied the less at least amount of footprint when you transmitted over the internet and every time you click no and  when you move just try to supplement the record a lot when you're asking us to continue consider materials that were not there a lot of really aggressive assault question is did you move to have her put these in the record and she sit in my private storage area and but when i want to share it is posted on the common area i post the file location information the access information onto the common area we heard primarily about step from step one arguments that the district court supposedly over simplified the claims here but for each of the claims in each of the patents we believe that this is to court properly determined that opinion and into display and in some detail but as far as discerning whether or not there's this is a conventional hymns or something more on why isn't there enough in this record to resetted you see things like servers and processors user interfaces and program code and then the types of functions that they're supposedly performing are displaying information selecting storing the leading accessing information in the case as we said in our brief show that each of these components in each of these functions has been found time and time again by this court to be routine and commonplace there's nothing if you look at the claims again we have to focus on what's in the claims if you look at the claims there's nothing in those cla when you look at them that shows that the components here are used in any manner other than as the way they're intended to be and including off the shelf components and we cited the electric power case to show that that's exactly what this one has previously held and the only other argument you hear from them is that if you take a step back and don't focus on each one of the individual components but you look at the order combination as a whole that somehow maybe save these claims but again if you look the case law on this and we've said it in our briefs electric power case in the you know actual ventures which is indemnification claims case that nothing again in these claims shows that anything other than the components being used in an off the shelf manner as they are routinely understood and expect to be used and because of that even if you consider them as an order combination it does not take them out of the realm of step two of alice so it doesn't matter if you look at the combination of components as an order combination or if you look at them individually you come back to the same unmistakable conclusion that these are off the shelf components used in their conventional dismiss you really got two choices that the district court you can fight on the complaint as you played it and simply oppose the motion which is the route that they took or you have a matter of right to file an amended complaint in response to motion to dismiss they didn't go that route they thought their arguments were good enough they thought their claims were good enough so they went the route of we're just going to oppose so they didn't try to bring any of these additional artists they're now trying to bring into the case now switzer like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too they took the first shot on the is a fairly common practice and i've actually had cases before this court before from new york and from other districts where it's commonplace is that it's understood that if you are going to oppose a motion to dismiss you take your best shot you can either found  complaint and then have a maybe a new motion filed or if you just go oppose that that your chance to do it so i think no it's not uncommon but second of all even if you look further so if we look past of the issue that they didn't raise this issue below and we look at what they're that that we can just put aside you know if they if they want to add new claims or new patents and the and that would do nothing to the issues with these claims second issue of specifications they say we should be able to cite the other special occasions they've given one example in the in breeze if you look in the one example is that they say the law is not abstract but it's a real specific implementation even if that's true that's not the reason why the court below found the claim to be  the district court found the claims require only a conventional lock that was the key so whether or not the lock is real and specific doesn't matter because the specifications themselves in minute blocks are conventional and you can see that that sighted our briefs it's in the the briefs and that was a statement about accessing a multi layer folder and they cite to one page from the prosecution history in the briefs and that's j n zero eight now if you look at that page of the prosecution history the primary focus there is talking about what a par effort or art reference shows it's got nothing that i can discern that would support an argument here that would take these claims out of the step two part of the alice male test so again long answer question but a couple things first of all they did not seek leave to amend before they do not avail themselves of that possibility they didn't do anything post entry of the motion to dismiss the granting of that to do anything to alter the record and then here trying to put these new arguments  even if you let them supplement the record and make these new arguments about new patent specifications and prosecution history none of that we get them over the hurdle here that's why i think that this report was right in determining that and motion to amend here would be futile and that why that's why i was