guys in case like patrick intelligence person that scout and sri international versus cisco systems the claims in the windows seven times and the claims of the five time a long time to not use a computer is merely a tool to create a social network rather the claims of the package are limited to the specific technological improvements or techniques of the plane radius systems and the cells in the social network on a computer system stated in another way the claim how that rating system is determined for the one of the seven patent the rating is determined at least in part based on track for spots to for the five hundred and ninety one pattern the rig is based on user feedback of the publish patent claims title for another reason a social network is something concrete something real and not abstract in the slightest a social network has a very particular meaning in the archaeal as comely understood as a website that brings people together i've talked a little bit up to the spiritual delta of mystery meat and this is judge chen i just like to ask a quick question here yes sure of the hype it's a hypothetical imagine that i have a business and my business is trying to help customers find good real estate agents good home renovation contractors  then and i have a little office and customers come into my office and say i need help trying to find a house in a particular neighborhood and i also need to find painters and people that can do you know we finish floors and stuff like that and then i have a bunch of three ring binders in my office and i say ok you want to live in arlington virginia well let me go to my binder and i know a lot of great real estate agents in arlington virginia and what i'm going to do is i'm going to contact some of those agents and give them your phone number and then they will call you and contact you and then you'll get to choose which one of those agents you want to work with to try to find a house in our line go to church and we want to continue  hello mr remy can you hear me yes thank you ok yes i was in the middle of a long winded hypothetical and i apologize for using up your time but very quickly to start over i'm talking about hypothetical of where i have my own business with an office and customers come in and they're looking for relocation services and they're looking for people like real estate agents and home renovation contractors and they come to me and then i have a bunch of three ring binders that have preferred agents and contractors and then through looking through my binders i find the phone numbers of what i think are really good agents and really good home contractors and i and i contact those people to to give a phone call to my customer and then based on how quickly they call the customer i will assign a rating to those agents and contractors would you say that that's a pattern eligible invention yes sure thank you for the question that i think oranges the paper and pencil mess is not a social network it's creating a social network of that one person that i'm sorry but before you go any further are you just so i get an answer to my question would you agree with me what i just described is not a pattern eligible invention i understand it doesn't have all the limitations of your claims so maybe it's not apple thapar but i'm just trying to figure out a baseline of whether you and i agree a social network what you have is a binder that with pencils with the individual rating so it's not the combination of the social network and that's what i was trying to get it will use the declaration of dr shapiro and the various supplemental briefings building these claims because social networks didn't exist at the time social networks allowed so much more than the paper and pencil binder we supply your own reading and that's that's what i was trying to get it maybe  maybe if i could look at something a little bit more a little bit more on the argument i think we're not trying to say your honor and a suggestion this might address exactly where you're going we're not trying to say to construction of the terms and we didn't have the hearing we think this case is that one should go to clean construction to fully defined the services just price and said well as you can learn a lot from that in the world focusing on the collateral estoppel issue so unless the court has any unusual quick questions i'll begin by addressing the hypothetical that was posed by the court that in the hypothetical don't suppose winning the person making a recommendation for a real chore the like when someone wants to move to arlington virginia that person making the recommendation is going to do so we're going to recommend a realtor who going those is responsible or otherwise dependable and people of been making those types of judgment calls since the beginning of humanity  mr rayney of knowledge that at least under the hypothetical it would be difficult to argue that they that that concept would be patent eligible but that i coins no longer require a a paper and pencil method and i think that that mystery is arguing that because what was traditionally performed by humans is now implemented on a computer there's a reasonable argument that the claims are patting eligible this court has held several instances that merely implementing a memories and servers and that is certainly consistent with for example quantum six of the one hundred and seven pattern that is generically directed to only a computer system preamble without more is not limiting and if we all look at the coins truly set for what they really cover it's no more than communicating generic information over a generic setting that aside even if mr ings argument were correct that the coins are directed to a social network that would not change the nature of the analysis in other words the coins would still be of a social network there were proposed terms for construction i do not believe social network was th measure of user feedback in other words a review or what one person says about another and that by itself is abstract so the terms that include rating even undernet such could pose construction would be abstract under any circumstance we pointed this out in our briefing but it's worth mentioning here certainly thank you thank you thank your honour's and may it please the court the district court in the northern district of california is one of three district courts that it correctly concluded directed to a social network however all the same the court found that correctly to be an abstract concept and so whether it is a social network or instead as the district court found match collecting and analyzing displaying data either way the claims are directed to an abstract concept they are not the same question about this case and that i asked  ing true in the new york case your honor i would have to defer to mr carter for that we were transferred you have three minutes ok yes i apologize i know there was not a claim construction order but whether they got into disclosing claim to arms i believe we were transferred to california by the time that would have happened if it did happen at all so in our case in this highlights some of the we certainly think st of all that the district court in few reasons in addition to those set forth by the court in texas why that's true i already mentioned one of them which is that not even the plaintiff argued that claim construction is relevant to the one of one issues on the five hundred and one patent was never raised in the motion and in addition there's been some discussion in the palance argument about the shapiro declaration that was not part of the california case it was not part of the complaint that was submitted and that was the subject of the rule twelve motion the plaintiffs did seek to amend the complaint but the district court correctly denied that because all the amendment did was cite to specification sites of the five on one patent it did not add any other patents and to the extent it relied on the expert declaration that declaration discusses the rating in feedback system in the one of seven patent and not in the five hundred and ninety one patent at issue in california and that's the last point of difference really is that the there was a lot of discussion in the plaintiffs in of howland's argument about feedback and ratings and really there is much less detail in the claims of the five on one patent in terms of feedback and ratings the ratings are not determined based on track response time there is simply a disclosure and a claim of tracking feedback based in at least in part on the published portion of the response and then determining a rating from the user for at least one of the selected one or more participant so there is no discussion at all about how that feedback is tracked what bases it's tracked on nor how any rating from the user for any of these participants is determined there is simply claiming any system that involves tracking feedback and determining ratings very broad and quite an abstract concept no granularity to that claim at all and so in the collateral stoppel that judgment would be properly affirmed on behalf of quora from the california case as well and unless your honour's have any additional questions for me i'm happy to see the rest of my time to mr carter also no claim that claims constructions proceedings would not be affected because the two times were since and so on that basis judge abrams permitted to proceed and her briefing on the collateral stopping issue rainey's rebuttal with whatever time he has left york for for a period of time when the motion to dismiss came out from the northern district of texas and briefing for claim destruction was made in the world hearings but it is part of the record before this court and i just want to point session for the morning the honorable court it's apparent until tomorrow morning at ten a