good morning your honors may to please the court i'm here together with my co counsel representing linked in in this appeal in preparing for this oral argument we did an analysis of the decisions from this court since the decision from the u s supreme court in the  and since the enactment of the a i a a which included this new role that the p tab has taken on in reviewing patents like in our case that have been determined to be a c v and patent and we learned a lot from doing that analysis because we think it helps provide the context for what went wrong in this case at the time that the peach had decided to that this case was a c v encased subject to see the end review they had no direction yet from the score when you look at the timing those decisions were rendered before this court issued its decision or saga before this court issued sight sound before it issued blue calypso and even in her saga the court talks about the fact that the the technological no your honor what our claim actually does is it transforms data it modifies data and this is where we believe that allocates conversion no your honor it does much more than that it transform from an affiliate code which is a very specific code and it's our position that that's where the patent trial and he'll board erred because they didn't understand the basic definition of the affiliate code the affiliate code is specifically defined in our patent it's defined as a code that is provided to the first person so like in our example that we given our brief we use the example of rows and she's trying to maximize payments she's a blog writer she writes and she wants to maximize billy to earn money from writing this blog so if she's a lincoln client she has an affiliate code from very specific merchants sellers and that code can change over time for any number of reasons one thing that i like to analogize it to is we've all had the experience of our credit cards where for whatever reason fraud  was a detected on your card or lost your card and you had to ask american express or bisa for a new card and then but maybe your comcast bill was on auto pay well all of a sudden when that when that one code that's on your credit card becomes invalidated then comcast no longer recognizes that credit card so in the affiliate world on the internet people that are trying to maximize the affiliate program have that exact same problem there are times that those affiliate codes they become stale they get changed or for whatever reason they're no longer valid and they're no longer recognizable so what our patent does is when improvements no your honor i think it is a direct improvement in not just the computer but in the way in which the computer interacts with the internet and when we look at some of the decisions from this court like the d d r case and in fish when you look at those they're looking for the improvement in the technology and clearly since we've studied all the cases we know the information that your honor and the rest of your honor's want from this and making that analysis so in our brief one of the things we did is we specifically identify the technological problem the technological solution and then where that is in our claim that fifteen to be held that your claims were not limited to the internet and we're not focused on that a is the most important thing and this i think what one of the points that goes to what you're asking is the key tabs finding consistent with d d r that our patent is not internet centric well when you look at what our patent does i there is no function without the internet that's why the bookstore example doesn't work because you can't even consider our patent outside of the internet context it deals with the affiliate program the affiliate program that we're talking about and that our patent is attempting to maximize the participation in only exists in the realm of the internet so what our patent does is it it improves the functionality between the computer and how the computer is in turn interacting and performing with things on the internet so without the internet our patent has no function if we agree with you  lag that's correct judge that's correct and we believe that that's easily decided in our favor as well because when you look at landau landau is specifically different than our complete than our pat two very important ways landau does not modify an affiliate and the where we think the p tab erred is in not fully doing a full claim construction analysis similar to a marksman hearing before they went off and interpreted the patterns so without knowing the definitions and without having a clear understanding of very important terms it's impossible to do the proper analysis so the other difference and i want to go back to that one in a moment because there's really two differences with landau and as the court knows we really only need one difference and that satisfies were it's not anticipated  and the other side asked for four different terms to the ones we asked for your affiliate capable merchant preferred affiliate code and we proposed that that definition is the same as preferred commercial agents modified data and then automatic automatically so this sort of goes back to the point i was making originally about the c p m issue when you look at their order and i want to i do think this  important just also i sort of want to walk you through the procedure of this they've won the other side files their petition and they are they asked for four terms to be construed first computer intermediary computer server and serving in our preliminary response we ask for the four times i just went over with you in the then the next thing that happens is the orders in those orders when you read what the court did you were not clear at all when you read the board yes yes you read what the board did you're not clear at all whether they accepted everyone's terms whether they didn't accept those terms they only say that they are going to interpret automatic automatically and so then when you go forward and you look then at their analysis what our position is is that if they did accept our definitions which is one interpretation that they accepted the definitions that everyone else proposed our position is that they didn't apply them properly and when you go to further down the line to the oral argument when you look at the oral argument and where they're talking about code which sort of goes back to a point i think you were making just a few moments ago just laurie they alternately concluded the oral argument and it's very clear there that they just see it's just code replacing code that there's no functionality in the code it's just code replacing code and that's not accurate what our patent does is it's looking for a very specific code code that has a very specific function and it is replacing that code with a different code that has a very specific function and so what we believe they wast is some of these fundamental definitions that make it necessary to do the want to one analysis those steps of that that make it necessary to do the landau analysis and the priest analysis because if you're not working with the right terms and you're not working and you don't have an understanding of what those terms mean visa the our patent then it necessarily leads you to an improper determination for example talking about the prior art with land rest of the proceeding when you read the oral argument it's almost as though everyone is still doing a claim construction at the oral argument and they're still all of this talk about what the terms mean and then when you get to the final decision they make a decision based on their definitions of the terms so if we can show that their definitions of the terms are incorrect it would be no different than if they had if they had let's say they had issued some other order and had said here's how we're defining all the terms of the board had said that if that was wrong we would still be able to raise that at this at this stage before the court so in other words when their final decisions reached the wrong result primarily that the peats have didn't have a lot of direction with all of the case law that's now coming out from this court there is a series rapidly you know this court is issuing opinions on this issue and if there were a what i was unclear on as and what issue i mean there are cases now that are say these are because there are technological innovations there's actually been a few cases that have come out even since all of our briefing was done i think cases that help that help are doing or not doing a c b m analysis but they're doing they're reviewing want to whine and inventive concept and when you look at verse saga what verse sata does on a c v m analysis is when it's looking at the concept that i didn't understand right that is certainly what it does i'm saying that i think if you look at just the definition even though it's not particularly helpful as for sort of says if you're looking for a technological problem and a analysis step two of alice to help make that decision by saying is there are improvements in the computer and all of those things i'm well into my rebuttal so i would just like to preserve some time th that morning your honour's may please the court richard mark milley representing skim links and big link i think we're through the looking glass on this appeal the systems that lynching is describing to try and save its patent bear resemblance to what's described in the specification of what's claimed and even what they argued to the board when gene patents don't have anything in them about choosing among a number of potential preferred affiliates which one you want to use it assumes that the system knows who the preferred affiliate is and just wants to check and see if that's who's going to get this commission the systems also don't disclose anything about choosing among merchants to say ok a webmaster can direct their sale to one merchant one day and one virgin another day there's nothing like that in there but plans don't even disclose a system to help a webmaster like rose the one concrete example that this patent gives about the utility of that system is in column four in the last paragraph it describes the situation of a small website that makes some sales through a larger web merchant like amazon and the system as described in that paragraph is operated by a third party who gets in between the customer of the small merchant and the big merchant and says do we really want this small website to get this commission is that the person we prefer and if it's not they they manipulate the commission system and redirect it the appellant's also talk a lot about the advantage they think their invention is i think their invention is so abstract that they have trouble keeping straight exactly what they're doing they describe a general goal of changing a commission ideally from one person to another alice simply applying a commission system on the internet and having basic ministerial functions to change one code to another is exactly the sort of thing that isn't eligible without a specific technical application system that has a u r l to go on a purely internal website but frankly i don't know that that matters because there's been plenty of systems in this court that have been internet centric that have been found to i think by say and even some of the other commission systems that have been held in  i think probably just to sum up here because i actually think that our briefing handles us pretty well what i find in reading all these cases is that the patents that are found eligible have a very clearly articulated technical problem and they match that clear technical problem up with a specific technical solution and then they claim that solution that's not present in the link gene disclosure and it's not present in the link gene claims to the extent they want they have a goal of maximizing participation and there's no specific you need technical solution to that problem in fact when you look at the background or the  you mentioned actual computers that work computer doesn't appear in their description of all their different systems there's no system architecture that shows the different devices and how they interrelate with one another there's  not even a requirement in the description of who needs to run the system the specification generically talks about the system being run by the user meaning the web browser and i s p it can basically be anywhere just needs to be on some computer so i am i think the brief actually covered this all pretty well and i'm here for the court if you have any specific questions thank  you think that when you look at our specifications it's clearly internet centric you know you have to think back to the time before before computers connected to the internet back in the day they really were fancy typewriters they were they were typewriters they could remember everything and we all began word processing on standalone computers that had no connection to the internet  think it does matter because it matters to what our invention is one of the ways in which the p t have erred because in our position our opponents led them down that road is they bought this book store analysis but when you look at our claims are our patent doesn't function without the internet and through out our specifications we talk about the affiliate program and how it exists on the internet and and there's nothing about what we patented that has to that can be performed in the real world which is why we believe really the train got off the track from the very beginning and then there was no one core now as whole that you know just because you have something you're saying do it on a computer or that in itself doesn't make it eligible how is this different from that she's doing it on the internet because it's not going to get something that's eligible i agree with you that's what alice says but what we do is we have very specific code so rose cannot get paid if the code is not properly the right code is the way i should say it so when the when the sale happens if the code is not right she doesn't get paid our system before the user ever receives the page back on the internet so in our position this case is a lot like bass com it's like in fish i think is the one where they're filtering content before the page ever comes back to the user on the computer the data is modified and the data is changed and it's specific data it's specific code it's not just any code it's an affiliate code that is changed to a preferred affiliate code it only arises in the internet and so for example if you just had a magazine let's say rows instead of putting her well on the computer her blog let's say she wrote a new a magazine article it was a magazine this doesn't arise in that context it can only arise because of the connection to in the internet and i think the internet centric point judge la goes to the fact that we're solving a problem th