all of this others it seems to me that you were trying to argue that these were invalid because of these other claims but they weren't at issue i mean is this what you have to specifically set out that the district courts ambiguous way to preserve that because you don't certainly don't and you're there for a lever conclusion or anything recognized that the district court's judgment should it should be vacated at least in part with to the unassert reversing all of the claims because we think the district court was entirely right on one on one it does not seem to me that you specifically laid out an alternative argument as to the asserted claim under certain claims let me follow that pointing your statement of the issues in the earlier case we had ten issues all of which silly but in your case only have three and the issue the judge used for going to is not one of your issues so technically you have not raised before us the issue of whether the court heard including claims that were not is your claim not an abstract idea that if you give us a definition of an abstract idea and tell us why your claims or your invention whichever it is do not fall within the concept what is your definition of the concept looking at alice that one for what the claims are directed to the claims of the five in two that are directed to methods apparatuses in articles of an abstract idea my question to you what is an abstract idea and why are you not one of them and after i think dear looking at the case law by the supreme court fanned items such as algorithms or fundamental economic practices neither of which are with the finding to guide is directed to doesn't involve a commercial transaction w providing protection for the consumers financial information it does do that your honor but the manner in which it does it it is then concrete and tangible which takes it out of any obstructionist which does what it's it's concrete and tangible so then takes it out of being asked right what about it concrete and tangible so at the time of the invention they go to a store that's that's over looking what the invention did and what the state of the art was at the time hundred seven persons of ordinary skill in the art did not know how to combine technology such as database management electronic communications operations and the just x and period reconciliation and what that means here is reimburse you question your and tory and you'll ship that directly to the customer a i paid the clerk here in washington is that an example of your entities and your claims what we're saying is that they are different entities or there is the potential that they can be all your there's also no point of sale terminal determine the price for the order or any determination it so here's where i think you're getting it into trouble at least for me when you honor there's nothing in the claims that require there be a contract at all maybe that's why does it matter at that point of sale computer is independently possible at some point all computers were pattern of all but alice and all these other cases have yes it is an actual physical device that you can actually pick up and it isn't that entirely inconsistent with just hoards of press that from the supreme court in this court on that point well because there are machines in this it's a machine line beginning at line practicing the presence invention a little relationships are preferably established between the catalog merchants who operate remote seller system the processing of our trying to operate remote processor system and the retail merging to operates local pos system more specifically contractual relationships that's a contract contractual relationships are stablished between the parties where under the there's nothing in there that calls for some sort of special dish or anything else apparently there's going to be an agreement between a remote merchant or merchant that this is the  this together but the place you should be looking at is column five line twenty nine the system or review that section as treat you the same way i treated mr weinblatt i'm going to start out by asking you're claiming that his invention is an abstract idea and they're right that's correct your honor that's your case define for me what you or structure for carrying out that idea so idea that is divorced from the manger structure for carrying out that idea that's right so a good example and then we're going to go way back for this one that's let's not go to a good example that simply apply it to the invention before us their idea is to have a local merchant accept payment for goods ordered from a remote seller and that right that's correct basically what it's all about it's in the way they want to do it is through this computer system with some sort of code that's the means and the structure is the routine business interaction by computer that idea is not divorced from the means and the structure of corporate it right into the means instructor so i think you've just defined yourself out of the case well i disagree or your honor it see it's a question of degree and it's one that really depends on the context means for accomplishing their idea that is of the sort that the laws are intended to protect because if you have a means that so broad that it is the kind you see here where it is simply receiving information or transmitting information without a new way of doing that that isn't vance from the art in the patents he simply hasn't invented a he hasn't described it adequately w perhaps your honor maybe he did describe it in the specification but what he may have done which is what we have here in this case is he's claimed the broad idea so perhaps the of the team you know there's a lot about his ideas ideas quite surfeit well i disagree those quite specific your are i'll give you one example of it when in this case let's talk about the code for example the what is the curve is it is it anything specific in this for remote and l for local law to code it simple enough it is a code you don't have to spell that out desi what does someone of ordinary skill like me know how to do that you may know how to do that but what are you going  what it is that the abstract idea or do we look at the invention as described in the written description and in all of the various seventy four claims in this particular patent yes you start with that way your argument and it's perfectly sound like a good argument is that they don't spell it out in enough detail in the claims in the cutting they don't explain what the well they don't exclude they don't explain how to use the code to accomplish the idea of what they want to use it for so in this case i doing when i don't understand that sentence let's assume the code is either an r for a remote or an eye for a local and the local guy puts in an r indicating this payment is for the remote order i sent you earlier and they all understand that what what's wrong with what do you mean it doesn't work well abstract idea i don't think you have zero way to get around the fact that there is some overlap and this is been said by the supreme court as well that one of one is a is a more of a whole some concern about what do you believe the patent laws are intended to protect in order to preclude what could be wonderful inventions coming out within the scope of what you claim without precluding all those possible inventions opeth laws are intended to protect excluding certain kinds of invention vention is and the benefit from that may be that there are ways to get around it that could be beneficial to society by having people tr invent new ways of doing the same thing when you claim all ways of doing the same thing then and then that's where we want to one has been has stepped in and said now no this is what you've got here is really just an idea there's a lot of different ways of doing this idea but what you've claimed is the idea you know he claims that you go into the local market with your credit card i mean i don't know how much force pacific you get what is he what idea what alternatives is he blocking by saying go into a local merchant who has already made a contract with the remote there may be software that simply telling the computer to do something without anything about the computer being special other than it will do it for you and then there are contractual arrangements legal intangibles about how do you organize humans to communicate together and to work together so when you speak you build the business but there's a lot of different kinds this one is more about an overlap between legal intangibles and organizing human activity there are a remote seller in a local seller and the local seller accepts payment on behalf of the remote seller that's it and all they've done here in this clan in this patent is dress it up with computer technology the goal why i don't want to speak to the motive but the effects of that is that let's have a big business idea which is just a small variation on what has been done before so maybe no one's done it before but that's only because they didn't just didn't do it not because it's necessarily an advancement of a thing let's let's claim computers doing all this and what you've done in modern society is print all ways of doing this and i want to point out i don't believe us seen anything in the briefing of the record and even the expert testimony which touches on preemption that sellers having a local seller accept payment on their behalf maybe when computers are used but that's been that's been precluded in every sense of the word that claims are indefinite under one twelve the top of the a plan and one of three probably is dissipated under one or two there's enough of that going on you wouldn't have a big problem but i don't know why that makes it abstract it just makes it invalid but it doesn't make it abstract i'm trying to understand why of all the weaponry that's available to a defendant who is being sued by a crappy invention why do you go to one no one when you've got one zero two one zero three zero one twelve functional one i want to as a supreme court has laid it out and the standards that it and determine is this really something that's going to be protected because it may be that it may never have been done before and maybe it's obvious but the these the statute in the case law has set forth a rigorous test to  and you can look at it and you say they really are just going for the big idea and they're not really trying to be specific about what it is about how they're going to do that and that estimates are the claim so under the supreme court's case law statutory methods but in the current framework that's an expensive proposition claims because that was nowhere in the briefing and i think the reason is is that the way it was put forth in the briefing was not to parse out the claims but rather to look at some of the claims which were before the district court that your cou on all the claims we set forth in the lower court briefing we set forth representative claims at least one of which wasn't asserted against any party we moved for in validity of all the claims i issue we're going to ask the court not to rule on those claims well indeed if the invention however before it is an abstract idea then all of the claims that hang on to it would be invalid which it is now an eligible invention other doesn't change it from being abstract that step to the states of the house that's where you take an abstract invention and you somehow make it oh great that's different from whether it's abstract one can see a nugget of what an abstract idea is what the patsy was going for and you can say that's the abstract idea the made those tests is as you point out a two step framework so you may or may may have gotten the right may have got it wrong as to what the idea is that's abstract but there's a second test a second step and that's that was never gotten to in this case i disagree your honor the court did make a finding that  there was nothing in the claims that made them special to take it out it wasn't as explicit the same step two has not been met up with the court did say for example like meaningful limitations on the  restricted to any specific inventive ways of storing codes and databases or electronically applying them so that's with more specificity but that's also a rationale under step two of i'll sail so that's  claims here are more than the affectation the court has mentioned today because there is this code to be generated by the remote seller that's then transferred over to the point of sale system of the local seller and then used in