which is required to be met if the claims that issue work to be found invalid on indefiniteness we were respectful you argue that this case turns on with respect to two of the freak elements that were found to be indefinite and the question is does it remain the law that an algorithm for a human puter implemented one twelve and element can be stated in prose as opposed to code or some of the other firms again in view of the evidence back really boils down to the question here the second question relating to the third element is is it still a law that for a one twelve f element an algorithm is only required when the corresponding function is to be carried out by a general purpose computer and the corresponding function is not something construed as the same and they are electronic that way comparison means in claymore and computer data program processing means you can claim three now the district court's ruling respect we heard can only be sustained if you essentially ignore virtually all of the evidence of record here and my colleague at the market hearing at one point we every said experts are something like a jukebox as you put in a coin and you hear the song you want i think in that country even if we take that as truth if we work on that premise perhaps it's most  recognized by all of the experts who have opined on this issue and the great patent and this was quoted by their expert course at appendix sixty four zero four through sixty four zero six and in turn he quotes the four i have reviewed the term electronic bit when comparison means and he goes on to recite the corresponding function and then toward the end of this quote a proceed a pasta would understand that appeal c with an as found in the re one seventy two patent and discloses column in line column five thirty nine hundred forty four six six three nineteen so he says there's a number of them you know this is their positive  the same thing again finding that there was an algorithm turning to the computer data and program let me get to where at least i have a difficulty with with your position it seems to me that it could be  cited by mr portia and in those sections you will see that set out or numerical ranges that are better compared that or process that talk about this proportional signal that is generated that goes out  to generate the braking signal and so we it is a very simple process you have a user set point what what you want you're reading what comes in and out of that you have a signal that controls the brake and until those those match up in essence now and say how it does that i mean to me all you're saying is really broad functional language re describ function which is insufficient when you have a means let's function well your honor if we had said for example and this would be along the lines of aristocrat you know merely reciting the function of course is is is prohibited functional language if we had said calculate a signal for the correct brake pressure well that certainly would be merely functional language but instead we say you take this information and what the user is determining the weight on bit you compare it with what the measured from the sensor what the actual weight on bit is and you generate a signal that tells the centrally the break go up or down to zero in on that what is the signal we want and you're dealing with a computer known in the art to achieve the end result sending out this bright control signal and that is precisely what mr portion of their expert as well as ours will find out it's like we see here is an algorithm this would achieve this function they did they missed that on the record their own expert came to that conclusion and and as as did ours again we did not say in a clear and convincing as i can't emphasize this enough in a clear and convincing evidence very standard how can we say respectfully that clear and convincing evidence is to the effect that there is no algorithm when every single expert can point to it what is it well it's the it's the language we just talk about a says it describes you take the input signal from the from the sensor you you take the user input you generate  signal and send it out to the right control and this is something that these peel see is and this is also the record these p l c use they're able to do that and so no we don't have computer code we don't have flow charts but our the next step disclosure is that the code or the actual code or is there some intermediate path that might provide more information to fulfill the purpose of patents which is to teach the technology that you developed your honor i believe and this is consistent with the testimony that we've voted in the record that the next step would have been simply to translate what was described of all it was recognized including  their expert as an algorithm into cover for this appeal see which again is a is an industry used computer somewhat special purpose but still programming code would be the next step your honor we would argue well if if the if the basically and this is very straightforward i guess that's why this this seems so simple but if the if that isn't simple to you it doesn't seem simple to me and i don't see anything and that language that tells me how you get from it's simple and just something about the step ok the steps are the user inputs i want ten thousand pounds weight on that pressure the sensor reads that it's twelve thousand pal then the out that says reduce the way don't bet to where until it reaches ten thousand if only other hand the measured is eight thousand send out a signal that takes it back up to ten it's a very simple are way breaking control but i believe its not show it fifty forty record with them so that they can answer a question you've been here before i don't understand why you don't have the whole record in front of you so you can you can answer questions i apologize your honor i it's a column six beginning at  and then it goes on to describe again more or less along the lines i was just describing if the way just too high you send a signal to correct it was too low you send a signal corrected and this forty ninety five is is an understood  m of electric motor eighty two and goes on to describe the set for nts and signal out and we're describing what people in the art understood to be i'm an example and in houston we hate traffic and we always look around we need a car that can fly over traffic so if you take your car and you want to pat norna and you say well we're going to program this car to fly from ten feet one hundred feet and it's going to get us all the way to work and we go try to get a patent on it you can't get a patent on that and the reason you can't get a patent on that is because you haven't possess an intervention you actually haven't designed something you can't describe something you want to achieve in the real world and have that satisfy did that and it sounds like you have that example in your pocket what i really want to know is specifically these warnings in public six  the certain functionalities they want to achieve will be products of the software or firmware their user i get it he pointed us to that clearly is not enough that is completely functional claiming we have software that's going to do the desires of all us not actually putting i the signal from zero to four ninety five that they're talking about they don't define that signal and they don't tell us how to get to that signal in an automatic drill or you're going to have a four to twenty milligram signal and a milligram signal is going to be a tiny tiny little bitty signal i mean in the end of the system you have to have a signal that's strong enough in power to turn an electric motor to get it working and we have no idea how this tiny tiny little bitty milla am signal gets to hear and saying describing something happening in and in the field an automatic driller is drawing at this rate of change is this right change this right that doesn't tell us give us the step must step way to do it on a computer that's one thing and then u and look at this just to get it in context there are automatic driller claims about their claims require that it be capable of going both up and down pulling the drill stem up and down and in this particular portion all they're talking about is pulling the break so they had they not only is that not a sufficient example to tell us how to do it on a computer if we were to try to use our expertise our pursuit of knowledge and try to discern what the heck it means it is only half the discussing here your honor we went through a comprehensive martin hearing and construed it don't quote me on that something eight or nine different terms but only the indefinite terms are part of the correctly well it answers the question i asked you the question with which it comes to mind in fact the broader question that if having a computerized system that was in the past done manually through experience and instinct and all of the other decades generations that have gone into these experience it seems to me that on the one hand this is a significant contribution but on the other hand how broad is one fairly entitled to  through that there were significant contributions of expertise where can we draw a reasonable and fair line because it does seem as if they've made an important contribution yes your honor and there was a there was a big supreme court case on this i cannot think of the top of my head but there's things have been done mechanically for so many years and when the computer technology revolution hit all these people came in and said hey we want to pat on the way it used to be done mechanically we want to now do a computer and we want to pattern it that way will use the means language and that sort of where this all go algorithm acquirement came out and it's a very strict one because it's too easy to algorithm requirement you have to be able to read you have to have a step by step guide on how to achieve what they want are a computer you have to be able to achieve that on a computer you can't describe beginning to the end and have step by step way where we can sit down on the computer and design it and if you guys or gals are well familiar that that is the trade off for getting a patent you have to tell everyone else what you discovered and here it it's very obvious that they did not have a way to get this done on a computer so they sort of use this functional language of what they wanted to achieve and that's not sufficient on  use pros but there is very little case law out there that's found prose a sufficient and if it is per if if i were writing the patent not for this would be in the form of an executable computer program i would close the actual program we think they're going to get there one point i really wanted to hit home that that are a plus and that opposing counsel made during his as he said that the experts agree with him and i disagree with his  n i think the all the experts agreed with us and if you look at page eighteen on our brief we go through the details out from these pages i would have to use my knowledge readily obtained in the field and then if you read the next paragraph from their expert he says to actually get this invention to work i would have to develop an and figure out a way to drive the bed up and down and none of those details are there he's saying he would have to hire someone to sort of fill in the blanks and do those details that's long been the law that you could hire someone to conduct routine operations this case but i still don't know the dividing line between the pros description such as here reduce the weight and providing several million or  you are i would respectfully suggest that reduce the weight and drive the drills down up and down those are what you call wishlist objectives that's what i would like this invention to  achieve that says not that's the functional language that we know does not satisfy an algorithm now if we take a step back further and the prose you're interested and if you want prose sufficient enough to raise and lower the general strength you should have examples of would need to start with this for twenty milligram signal the signal needs to come into a certain type of computor program to program the program uses a certain type of operating system that operating happen that is in there and they clarified that they are now owned on signal input means very briefly we would expect leaders of the district court essentially read an element of the claim in finding that signal input means was merely preferable we would argue that the district court exchange preferred and body much with preferred to be there at all now in column five of the the way the court construed signal input means it would basically mean a p l c comprising of p l c and that essentially reads that element out by saying that that it has to be through thirty five here we describe that you have an analog digital converter we even give an example of something i mean i think you have a good argument on this issue and even if we agree with you no you have to yes we have pros yes it is simplicity to your honor of judgment you ask about if all we're doing is doing my computer that's which is done been done forever if that was the only thing in these claims than life frankly we would have alice issues but it's not we have we have a computer taking in sensitive sensor data we have the computer sending out data to a responsive non pneumatic motor these are all elements of those play so it's the integration certainly computer is part of it but it's the integration of these features yes the calculation is what's been done you know manually for a long time but you put it all together what you have is an incredibly responsive auto drill system that invents the arc tremendously and so the fact that the computer element of it is very simple that does reflect what was done before very simple it's too high so no signal that was a tremendous contribution to the art so your honor we would we would urge that simple as it is the law allows us to in prose say do this than do this than do this and we we did that we don't have code admittedly so there's an algorithm there and i and i would respectfully remind the court of course you know this clear and convincing evidence when you have experts when we have all experts including there saying i see an algorithm here is where it is this carries out that function in fact mr porson actually use the term structure i find that this is what carries out that function how can we have sclera and convincing evidence of invalidity in the face of that when when you look at it at that evidence your level so we respectfully urge your honor that you reverse the lower court's finding as to indefiniteness of all three elements and rema