brief we have specific diagrams to assist the court in understanding each of these concrete steps or the unconventional mobile application unconventional combinations and these technical improvements are specific enough to where this should not be an abstract idea and some of the key concepts are that you have an internet in capable data capture device for example a camera  transfer data to an internet capable mobile device such as the mobile phone but it has to be over a previously established short range paired connection that's done the request response to polling or through event conventional way of communicating that there was nothing conventional about these way that the there's a dispute between the parties the factual speed as to whether there was any event notification or polling or request response over a pair of bluetooth connection what was conventional was that for example in the kennedy device that you just connect blurted out and then disconnected having the peer connection was deemed unconventional and it's discussed in the prosecution's history that they called it as being unconventional because they thought well that would cost too much battery but actually a part of its invention is part of the battery savings that comes into place now that you're dealing with non native data and non native data just simply wasn't transferred over bluetooth connections up to websites just simply wasn't done so now you have this year aren't really is that it's down to that it's not a question of whether sending data is an abstract like the fact that that you're saying this was an unconve ntional way the fact well it's it's both because under step one if you have a technical solution and if you have something it's specific a non generic enough then it should pass step one as it is directed to transferring data from the internet incapable data capture device to an internet capable mobile device over a previously established pair of short range wireless connection through request response argument should be sufficient to overcome this ruling but i think i think that they're both solid arguments in accordance with the case law on the facts and what i didn't get to was that we have this trusted intermediate device and it's translating to information for what isn't the right just juxtaposition device like the computer that the previous exercisers used to type in the information into or basically bluetooth devices a substitute for the quick well it is a conventionality would be to have the capture device self with all this functionality which uses a lot of battery which requires a lot of hardware which makes a capture device expensive and also you don't necessarily want all this i thought one of the conventional devices was a camera takes a bunch of photos and you pull out the little card and put the car into a device that's already hooked up one way or the other to the it is an already peer bluetooth connection which has substantial benefits and it's such something going on over that are you pair bluetooth connection that hadn't gone on before namely this request response event notification and polling in addition the prior art you're talking about it didn't talk about how how native data was you'd add user our website information at the mobile device that's just simply not that these are things that sell span and invent at the convention would be that all this would have been done at the capture device and you wouldn't even do it one of the conventions but different conventions the one that i just  one you described just described in that's actually describing the pattern it is you don't have to move from the camera some information by hand or otherwise into a device it's actually connected to the inter l line by way but the patent doesn't describe that prior art method as as as converting to a c t p in transit as adding user information transit is adding the website information in transit and in addition essentially a a a router which is passing along the information but are as we've distinguished there's a big difference between a router and what's happening here where you're not just passing along native data one way to look at it is the the benefits that flow from these technical improvements and one once i can say we think that's conventional one side we can say we think it's not wha out what the conventionality was and here that when you juxtapose the the invention with what's conventional you see that it's not conventional and you see all these benefits that flow those alleged errors in the dish of course opinion are not enough for remain here because this court sits to review judgments and not opinions and review here is  honor for several reasons first that is not a factual allegation that is simply applying the conclusory legal label of unconventional so these alleged benefits second your honor it paul says that the reviewing court in determining whether a claim  specification and the claims and the court has repeatedly taught in berkeley america in the t l i you were listening to mr edmonson he resigned or no specific thing things forget about whether they were beneficial right just talk about the specific techniques that he resigned right here under none of those specific techniques whether they be battery savings or using h t t p protocol or using an already bluetooth connection none of those techniques have implausibly away edge to be improvements in computer functionality itself why would that be a no and your honor because you cannot possibly infer those alleged benefits from the patent nor even if you could are those improvements computer functionality itself when we take a look at the a sound like a broken record sure you're on if you knew for a minute forget about the benefits and talk about the techniques that are asserted to be unconventional weak maybe have those benefits but i'm interested in the it's never been done before this court has made clear that simply because something may be alleged to be novel or non obvious doesn't make it an unconventional improvement to computer functionality that you and four at appendix page two eighty seven of the seven nine four part and always see is a description of how the bluetooth protocol works and there's no hint whatsoever that there's anything unconventional yes your honor and then conducting the search for the inventive concept of step two we look at the patent and we say what those the patents say is the alleged inventive concept in the patents is over and over again it is to take manual st process and using conventional technology describe the column nine lines thirty seven the forty as pervasive flexible incapable enough of achieving the desired tasks of the system so purely functional results oriented language and all that we do is that instead of unplugging the memory set from the camera walking over to a computer plugging it in and then typing at a keyboard to upload that data to a website all that you do is use conventional creates this thing routine technologies in order to automate that process and this court has said over and over your honor in the capitol one cases internet patents affinity lives electric power oh  technologies symantec that if you simply apply conventional technology to previously manual steps so that the user can save time performing then that is not an inventive concept you understand i think that there's no dispute about the principle that you just articulated the question is how does it apply on this record which includes these patents and the amended complaint to the so yes your honor thing here is about the specifics of of the complaint and you keep wanting to raise the level of generality to resave the general principles which you know doesn't seem to me very much so if your honor what you have to view the step process and then that to even if they that conventional ways were used to do this but not in the particular way claimed by the patent and so the question is how do you decide what's conventional and what's not conventional it's and when we look at the manual steps in a process then conventional technologies behaving in conventional ways and then honor every factual allegation you can even even take every non factual allegation as is being true when you look at the complaint in isolation but then when you apply this court's law and say are these alleged techniques improvements in computer functionality they're not it doesn't improve the functioning of bluetooth it doesn't improve the functioning of the digital camera or the mobile device or any of these other pervasive technologies  together your honor there's no plausible allegation that it doesn't prove the way that they operate together all that the patent says and all that can be plausibly alleged here is that you're saving the user time in saying that you no longer have to take out the memory stay and plug it in and you no longer have to go to the keyboard and type things in to upload it and all you're doing is using conventional technologies behaving in their expected way and your honor in terms of the an h t t p transfer protocol there's only one brief reference to that in the specification at column ten lines four to nine on appendix page to ninety and there they don't tell you anything about how to implement  that is not captured in the claims at all although the claim say is you payer and then you transfer data that was acquired after the pairing there is no requirement that you keep that bare paired bluetooth connection  i've even if it were in the claims that wouldn't be an improvement the computer functionality that would simply be saying just leave the lights in the room on when you leave so that will already be on when you go back in but all that you have is in a tent just like an electric power in conte extraction to limit the application of this abstract idea to a particular type of data all you're saying is that you pair the bluetooth connection then the type of data that you transfer using these conventional technologies acting in conventional are going back to this issue of step two and you were combination the district court i did not really focus sufficiently on that the district court was was hung up on in large part all right tory for example i'm looking on page it's appendix twenty two ninety three y so it's and it says it's supposed graphically using event notification polling and request return communication protocols over an already paired connection and have the it's explain what's conventional which which includes that you would not have the paired connection before doing this and it and specifically it talks about kennedy and in kennedy and it's it's referring back to the prosecution history which is also separately cited but in kennedy you connect san disconnect don't have an established clear connection with this polling or event notification or request in response then it goes on and as you get on to page twenty two ninety two it calls out these benefits in improvement actually starts twenty two ninety on criticism was well that's just conclusory well what's not conclusory or what could be called conclusory is that when you identify what's conventional you identify what is his new and what we deem invented and you suppose that and say when you take the innovative aspects here these are the benefits you get and it's not just saving time is as my colleague said it's saving battery it's leveraging the capabilities of this intermediate device and it's conserving not just battery resources but also other resources but we we have in our brief there is a listing just bullet point of the unconventional aspects of the section it says unconventional we have one section on ok then if it's improvements one section on unconventional aspects and they're all laid out there and they have citations to the record their part part of it comes from juxtaposing with it during