computerized corking systems at that time the invention we're talking about today is a real time open parking mobile app that combines a cunt conventional non generic wireless communication device the  new one conventional and not generic and specific software applications will receiving bargain data over the internet rendering a real time presentation of that porting that it into one or more substantial improvement over prior to create a base parking systems and it's a technological problem the problem was how to send real time parking lot they can see that are two commuters before they got to the parking lot before they actually had to drive to the parking lot how does claim one solve that problem by one demonstrate a huge technological advance advance what how to send data meters at the parking lot because that's what you just said so what the limitation claim the line demonstrates to me how that huge technological innovations chain it's the software application for receiving parking data which is then transmitted over the internet then friend you know i don't say that it would be written in different code that would i but i think it would have to do it would have to do something different that doesn't do what we did i guess then i guess you're saying this is a unique application because it's communicating parking lot data as opposed to know whether there are open tables at a restaurant or where we don't know whether it's like down the street or you know how much candy is still available at the seven eleven i mean those would be  different software applications well they might be a matter but we don't know what was what was a questionnaire or at the time we are not applying we are not applying nor do we represent that we are applying  technology to new technology to two existing existing one standing business practices just to make it apply to the parking lot circumstance we don't need we don't think that this nine and some other inventor filed a patent application for and a software i have to tell you about the availability of tables at various restaurants plot that the claim is basically the same we have a system and we have a server and we have an app and we have a handheld wired wireless device and there's a communication of information in real time was new it's possible but i don't believe that i don't believe that we can make that decision now we don't know whether what they did was new or how they did it we have a new piece of software in our case that was never written before and that does something to now we're not asking for a software patent we're asking for a system that it combines two different two different pieces of new technology a communication device that did not exist you were known somebody on sight watching in the parking lot and carrying the empty space in the apollo telephone telling you all that was the old that was the old way to do with that may have been the old business practice that was not the business practice that we were using here we're not creating a patent that deals with all technology just adding a computer to all the business practice week this was never done before it is much more official one of these cases is a new business nothing new business method which is what you have here and every one of these cases fail but nobody fought against alice more than me i got umpteen decisions fighting against all of that and i so i understand why he wants to fight to the death to preserve them but there's nothing in this case that distinguishes that this is one of least strong cases i've seen in a long time to be complaining about one a one ruling in light of the current state of our law which i am bound by your honor i don't want to be careful i don't think this is anything like alice alice you had a whole bunch of information that was all practices all business practices and all you did alice was the head of a generic piece of computer software there's nothing over the this is nothing like that whatsoever this is new a new piece of specifically designed software that is connected with a new kind of computer that at the time as we said was not well known it was not generic and it was able to do something it had never done before and it had a great improvement on the technology it's sop a very very significant problem you could drive in your car you could look at the the display and you can see where you should waste time driving to when where you should you save time you say i guess it was a that it's not the abstract quote looking for parking which is what part of me and the judge apparently want to tag us with this is collecting you know selling information about you do not want to get us to the not abstract determination then we would argue that this is an inventive concept that turned in a  is and the term and whether or not it focuses is concrete enough we think it is but we are willing to also argue if we have to that this patent that this invention was inventive non generic piece of computer equipment which did not exist before the data the patent was not used for this way in the in the least there's no evidence of that and he used a specific piece of software which told within which is described in the in the patent application do a very specific specific thing that's what applications do that would have been one of the definitions of an application that we would have presented t device the point of novelty in our view is the combination of the two the the wireless communication devices not been used in our understanding for this before this would have been the first time the leader was used for parking  it would have been used for anything that is to to create a real time real time representation of information that somebody could look at and use we don't know that there's no evidence of existed before we don't think it did so the use this is not the use of a generic computers not the use of an office self off the shelf piece of computer software that this was a very inventive concept at the time that  my client recognised because he was going through the problem every day and it helps people it is not you don't go to the lot and we don't have to go to the lot anymore that was the old it was the old style inquiry and that's not the case here that what we're dealing with is a longstanding human practice that neither side disputes a longstanding human practice namely the effort to get information about open parking spaces to which the patent he added a generic computer a generic application which is recitals in the patent only as internet explorer or words or die one mention when i work in stuff like this and i think i'm glad somebody did it this makes my life here it's kind of like when you pull into tyson's corner which is near here and they've got the little red laser green light you can look down the road to drive down the road anymore to see if there are bank and or full spots but there's little like  life more efficient it does not make the technology more efficient and all of this court's decisions that have found what i want to believe in technology before this i mean what we say doesn't make the technology work the shit i'm not sure that's right i think the state of identifying where open spots are was less efficient before this i mean what i mean what what were the manners by which that was accomplished somebody standing there when you know there's a spot where those lights i just described still requires me to go to the road look down allowed a patent of this sort through our screen merely by making life more efficient discourse of the must make the technology more efficient it much use the technology not as a tool but to the improve the functioning of the technology in some way whether it's d d r in fish or mc rove or anything else all those cases improve the technology everything presumably that has come before the court and been invalidated or found unpatentable has no doubt made  life more efficient your honor but it doesn't make the technology more efficient and as to the specific state of the technology at the time this quarter media relied on no more than the statements made in column two of the patents that are in particular patents there that talk about the remote transmission of parking information to portable devices in one instance a portable device was in a car in another instance it was a remote device in the nature of the device wasn't explained but the patent itself here provides all that the court needs to and the status of the prior art and in the patent that issued the pensions even inventions that nobody thought of before and everybody really likes them things are great and make their life easier sell them and to be that if they take a long standing human practice and implement it only with generic technology yes and that's the case here for the three nine one and seventy six pat information we always wanted but let's just say for a moment you never had it back in one thousand nine hundred i mean to who i mean another way of looking at the abstract idea of what i think which is merely moving data or communicating information from point a to point b and that's an abstract and you could probably find support for that notion in our cases i guess what i'm wondering is what if the claimed invention was something a little more than that what if it was a graphical user interface that actually displayed a color coded diagram of a parking lot and then it showed you  and you think that would be something that now would a little bit closer to the computer itself that it would be regarded as an incentive concept you know your honor because in that in your hypothetical what's happening is we're taking information and we're saying you're making life more efficient by communicating it remotely via wirelessly or in this instance of the search expressly by using the internet as you indicate this information and in the same instance the longstanding  practice could have been you know looking back and looking in the parking lot with binoculars or waiting for the attendant to write lot full and know that one should move on if you if you drive down the block the fact that the information is being transmitted even farther away than it was transmitted previously doesn't know i'm talking about the actual display interface that that that they that this you know imagine then she would have  a clear identification of the location of a map through this constructed display in your hypothetical your honor if it were to improve the display and in the way the  display worked in and of itself it might possibly be but if if all it is doing is accomplishing the fact of making a display this court has held on repeated occasions that inventions that include just a generic display do not make an invention patentable under our laws most notably in the affinity labs an electric power grid cases if anything the claims that issue here are more generic and describe the process a longstanding human practice in a more abstract manner than the claims in electric power for instance because there you had the real time transmission of electric utility data a central processing station that processed it into something different and and derivative of the original data and then displayed it whereas here all we have is the transmission of the data and the display and the  also specifically identified the b g was four years later there was no particular type of computer involved it used to longstanding generic kinds of practices have in our patent which is to say receiving real time data so that you can look at it and it tells you make a little let you make a decision that was not wanted in any kind of longstanding practice at all certainly not for looking for parking you had is specified in our patent was not a longstanding practice we invented it and we think that that the inventor and the company that is the owner of the palace of title the benefit