for technological inventions that congress pacifically excluded from the c b s jurisdiction the claims here are directed to hardware components and technical aspects of a communication system specifically the patent describes the invention i'm quoting now as a general purpose radio frequency transceiver of having an open ended architecture that readily adapt it for a wide variety of uses and applications is it is it your position that we have to decide whether it's  patent what i'd like to focus on here today is whether it falls within the technological invention except it's an exception to the statute but to be clear we don't think this is a c b s patent this is a communication system it's technological in believe that the transceiver is winning does not screen printing one i don't think i don't know that one in and of itself is commensurate with claim one i think you would have to look at the magic word transceiver right i mean i understand different parts of the specification but we're just talking about a network of addressable the devices i think is the way that were properly analyzed by the board and can be properly looked at determine whether this is a c b s patent my position is that even if you look at claims three and four this is not a c b s patent because among other reasons it falls within the is whether falls into the technological invention exception however in our brief we did challenge whether that actually satisfies whether sufficiently related to our financial services to actually satisfy that st prong of the c b s analysis and  and i do maintain that there is a line of cases that this this court analyze where the p t o had been misapplying the statute and essentially saying anything that even remotely relates or could could tangentially relate to financial services included and this court said no you have to hew close to the statute the statute doesn't say closely doesn't say related or tangentially related it says it has to be used in the practice of a financial service i could argue and i would argue that having  t a generalized communication system where one component of that is associated with an a t m is really not that much different than what this court said is an improper analysis i believe it was blue clip so and saying that just because something is associated with a financial aspect does not make it a financial related patent that's still our position however i can see that's a closer call what i think is less of a close call is whether this is a technological invention under the exception that congress carved out receive a pass on the board said the claim elements are all old conventional a technological solution for a technological problem and it didn't address the other prong prong you just referred to as to whether or not this claimed invention represents a novel and non obvious technical improvement fair enough your honor just to be clear this court has criticized that st prong and you may be right that the p t o is keying off this court's criticism and focusing more on the nd prong so let me address that nd prong the nd prong merely recites technological solution for a technological problem the statute says that what's excluded are technological inventions the regulation nd prong says that right so i thought you just said that the statute said technological solution for a techno right thing it says is a novel and non obvious model and so there is another thing there's another thing this court has you has wrong to say that's the only thing in the regulation this court has criticized the st prong being novel and non obvious and there's no connection between being novel and non obvious and whether or not it's technological in nature clearly you can have it a lot and you'll get down into the facts of the case and explain why your view of the technological solution to assure a logical problem the patent overcame at least two problems technological problems in the prior one was the problem that you had to use specialized transceivers for specialized networks and overcame that problem using what is called an open architecture transceiver the open architecture transceiver  different companies to program the instruction codes to perform different different functions even though they're still using the same generic open architecture transceiver that was a and that is reflected in the instruction data limitation and all of the claims issue that is a technological solution to a technological problem the other technological solution was the use of a low power transceiver the inventor explained that the purpose of the low power transceiver was to avoid the problem of interference  and unlawful interception of data that's a technological problem and technological solution to it was to use a low power transceiver that's reflected in all the claims the board did not give credence to those problems and solutions what the board said is all the claims including three dollars and four dollars and the preventing interference and unlawful collection of data is selected in the low power transceiver limitation which is an all of the claims including claims three dollars and four dollars and what the board focused on was the board said well all this is really just solving the problem of automating what was previously a manual process of monitoring eighty engine vending machines we disagree that that's the only problem that was solved here but even if it was automating a manu process is a technical solution if you want to automate a manual process like the com one it doesn't say anything about a t m or vending machines right if names weren't for i'm talking about claim one that's correct your honor so claim one is more generally directed to the idea of how do you establish your communication between some remote device and a central location i think that's fair that's fair and then rather than going through the trouble of setting up some direct network line between any remote device in the central location it decides to use some form of wireless communication between that remote device and some intermediate  that's intermediate you know it is in fact networked to the central location somehow i think that's fair you're not claim anything is going to show group creation i believe that the claims do recit machine there is an embodiment in there that talks about that but i'm talking about claim one claim was a wireless communication between some device and some other device that's right and then that  device as a communication link setup with the central location that's right it's completely exhausted to any truth to what use you're making of this communication system claim one is completely exhausted it's purely a communication system a claim claims three  management a financial product or service and clearly claims the reason for the devices used in the financial product or service being the vending machine well there's a good relation to we just heard that the only thing that happens between specify or limit the instructions that can be given but what's clear here is that as the statute provides it's an apparatus for performing operations used in the practice of a financial product or service the financial product or service here is not something that is just a hypothetical or speculative use of the invention their argument is as though we were saying claim one itself or stablish is th is now being used in the practice of the financial service or product which is the vending machine or a t m machine and so that was the basis of their conclusion and there's an extent there's an statute and says not a technological solution to a technological problem has been criticized as not providing a lot of additional guidance but i think here this app this statute that test actually applies fairly clearly because we know from the patent what the problem was that was being solved and it's not a technological problem it's a financial problem and that's what the board so at page eight  being addressed is cost the cost of sending the service person out to do the periodic checks on the vending machines or the a t m stuff and that there might be a you know a lengthy period between those checks desired or desirable to communicate information to a single location that were just to communicate from a remote device to a predetermined location and so that it now spoke to how what happens trying to accomplish well if that general idea of some remote device that can't otherwise correctly communicate with some central location and now it wants to try to build some kind of communication link between this remote device in the central well what what we have here is exactly what the court has considered in cases such as and if in the labs where there is a longstanding human endeavor such as taking a video and taking it to a new region or calculating a price and what the patent is doing is saying we're going to use computers and there are elements to perform that same human endeavor and that's what this patent is doing that forever we've sent service people out to check on a t m s and vending machines and this is now going to automate that process that's all that's happening in order to about the challenge of the remote device trying to communicate for whatever reason who cares what that information content is to that central location and here they've decided it's not just let's send an e mail no be or let's just transmit somehow anyhow if you decided to create these two step process where instead of sending it using a direct link you do it with wireless communication from that remote device to some intermediate and then that intermediate you know has a direct communication link to that central location so you've got now a two step process here which me sounds a little more specific than just some broad based general notion of communicating from no data no but but what's the problem in each of those things and this is what the board analyzed each of those things is that generic element being used in its traditional conventional manner and so all they're doing is using these generic elements to do what humans have long done which is to go out see that there's a problem and then you're not going to go through the process of setting up a few records communication network between every remote device in a central location instead you're going to rely on these intermediate nodes which do have a direct communication link with then you use water interceptions of that wireless transmission so i'm beginning to see something here that well looks like a little more thought has been put into the communication process beyond chris this broad based idea communicate that information back to the central location so that the service person goes and uses a telephone and that's all that's claimed because the interface is linked to the public telephone system so all you have to do that's already part of the traditional process used the public telephone system to call back to the central location so now usually that's been done by a human now it's being done by a wireless radio link that's going to call using that same telephone system that is not a technological problem because those wireless low power radio transmitters are ubiquitous that was something that they can see they say the and this is cited that page seventeen is that that the technical nicol feature it does is not satisfied if the elements are nothing more than general computer system components used to carry out the claimed process so goes through and traces through each of the elements claim one has five elements a low power transceiver interface circuit controller communication link central station and each of those is conceived in the specification to be a routine generic element that low power transceiver is reflective of this is that pending say to the abstract directed to a general purpose transceiver having receiver to for receiving information signal a transmitter configured to transmit it was confirming that low power transmitters were quote used to virtually everywhere the interface circuit the interface circuit is designed interface with typical standard telephone circuitry the interface will be appreciated by person skilled in the art  appendix ninety seven control of the controller can be a general purpose microprocessor a microcontroller communications link that's the public switch telephone network that was always used central station to the actually of those elements is being used and it's in its normal conventional function and the things that they cited to the board as distinguishing it as being that this sort of technological problem that was being solved all relate to clean features that are not claimed for example they say that it addressed the problem of interference or addressed the problem of interception those two problems are in tom six to an extremely low power transmitter the extremely low power transmitter is conceded at the bottom of the column five to the top of the column six as preferably it is not required and therefore if the contention and possible intersection well your honor that that's not something that they claimed about low power generally they only identified that is solved by extremely low power meaning within a few feet what the board it's supported by ample evidence with mr geiger is testimony is that low power transmitter is actually something that the f c c regulates and has a whole brochure on this and that would include for the for this type of thing something low power and the power conveys only that it uses consumes little power not something specifically with respect to the transmission range and i also want to point to the port to the fact that the board made specific factual generic in whatever meaning you have they concede that those are generic ubiquitous used almost everywhere right and they're being used for precisely their their normal process which is to transmit wireless receiver and so nothing that is done here is novel or an obvious and it goes to that element as well which also has to be set satisfied the board focused on the fact that it all of the underlying can't be sure i mean i'm not sure what they really mean by it and i'm novel an obvious technical solution because yes it does sound like you want to read one of three but as we all know from issue to figure out whether to even institute his q b yeah and so i guess maybe the better call would be to have the board tell us what it thinks of how it should apply its own regulation about this phenomenon obvious provision for you or i i don't think that's necessary because the board has already told us that this patent is addressed to automating a  longstanding human activity in order to solve a financial issue which is price it's just trying to do it cheaper and there and they've said that there is no technological invention here because all of the elements are generic they're used in there so you're saying we should pull out of the one to one analysis and then one of three analysis the analysis that probably should have been done up front if that regulation means what it says well i don't think that it needed to have been done up front because these are alternative grounds that either of them is sufficient and many of this court cases address the c  am entirely comfortable with the court going back to the statutory test because there is no question that in this case what is claimed is being used in the practice of a financial product or service the financial product or service are explicitly recited which are an a t m and a vending machine i can't think of a more quintessential financial product or service and that this purported invention is being used in it in each case the court has found that they didn't need to really resolve that send it back to the board make a point because the case didn't require in this case is one that is on all fours with the statutory test and so i would urge the court it is been over in that sense to say that because this claim explicitly recites an a t m and a vending machine and that the apparatus that is claimed is used in perform the operations of those financial product or service that it satisfies the test and i don't know that the court needs to go any further here do that and regulation really makes no sense in light of the statute i think that it is helpful your honor and i think that it is helpful here and this court has found it helpful as it did in verse saga when it engaged in precisely the same analysis setting because what is claimed are using well established generic chips and put some in there and now this invention reportedly places a potato chip man and that's a central station no we need more barbecue chips so much got to go out there and put them in what's the technical problem here well st of all disagree that that's the only technical problem to trust your belt take your question to face value because that's what the board said the board said had the technical problem here is automating what was previously done manually even if you take that at face value as the alleged technical problem the solution to that is still a technological solution automating a manual process is a technical problem and when you want to automate something that's being done manually you call an engineer to develop a system to automate it you don't call a financial well certainly i don't think the this course should ignore anything the board did you should take everything the board did it and analyze it that portion of the boards and analysis by the way doesn't come from its own regulation and it doesn't come from the statute it comes from a set a series of guidelines that the p t o has published subsequent to some of this court's rulings the actual regulation step one is a novel an obvious i think we're all in agreement that that's not a very workable step to the analysis and this court has criticized that st step nd step of the of the argue that respectfully if what the board did here and said that these claims are religious solving a financial problem rather than a technical problem really was that's where the rubber meets the road that's the basis of the board's decision i would argue that would swallow almost the entirety of where the rubber meets the road here the need to do is explain why the manner of automation here as an aside in mclean is not just mere generic application but there is something nifty and maybe send it to i p r and said my position is according to the statute and and the board's regulations it actually doesn't have to be so called nifty it has to be technological in nature congress do not want technological solution i know we have open architecture non specialist transceiver that was the technological invention the patent talks about that that is the improvement that you went from having to program these specialized transceivers in the prior art now you don't you just use a generalize transceiver and you do the programming at the at the at the central site so you assign functions to these instruction codes that are then decoded not by the transceiver but at a central site in order to perform functions that was the technological solution to a technological problem that existed in one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven the other problem that was solved was this idea of interception of data and interference a very much real world problem at that time and it was solved through th just went through earlier instead of using either using a long long range wireless transmission such freida reach a far away central server you use very short range transmissions and use a series of generic in so that you can relay information essentially incompetence in a very short in a very small area and have that information picked up with very little risk of interference and unlawful interception and then relayed to the central service for