a signal from a cellular network it can process and convert that signal in ways that were unheard of at the time of the invention using components that were unheard of at the time of the internship and they can send a new signal out is the thing we filter out is that abstract and here if you filter out something like the court just said like the district court found that it is receiving a signal processing it and sending it out that by itself is abstract the question is is that a fair distillation of the claims that step one and then step to set whether it is or whether it's not when you distill that out and you compare it to the actual word combination of each of the individual claims do does the is no abstract idea here but if that is the abstract idea and the claims do not step on each individual even when you look at any one of them as an ordered combination of elements and compare that to the abstract idea you see something considerably more as the supreme court said so what's wrong with what judge or grady said when he said it looks like the core concept here is prepping a data video data signal so that it can be used on some other monitor other than a mobile phone monitor and everything reside in the claim is just conventional components use in conventional ways there is the videos coming in compressed you decompress it you need to prep it encoded either for a digital monitor or an analog monitor you know it can be done these communications can be done wirelessly or wired and the actual conversion of how you take a video signal that's designed for some very little screening and then convert it somehow in this magic conversion module box so that it can be blown up on a screen that's maybe twenty times bigger that's not really explained in the spec nor in the claim other than just a reference to something called the conversion module so taking all of that into account what was wrong with analysis in concluding that this is just an idea of converting a signal for one format to another format and then everything that's resided in the claim to apply that idea is just conventional nothing in the pattern that describes the so called magic clocks and that harkens back to the internet patterns case where there was functionality described but no real description of how that takes place the district court here really ignored evidence it's problem is there's more description in the past and the very next figure figure three has a very detail picture and the associated description of all the components and features that actually make this work and that conversion module is a new component it's something that was not unknown in the ark the collection of these elements of something that was not there so it meets that bascomb standard of the do with unconventional water combination of elements and figure three  you were at node and you had a compressed video signal and you wanted to transmit that to node b which would be for a digital monitor you would necessarily have to do the conventional step of decompressing and you would necessarily have to do the conventional step i think coding it for that specific standard for that particular digital monitor i  don't understand where the invention lies and prompting a signal that is compressed to be displayed on a digital monitor where  with the assumption in some ways here that taking information from a cell phone that i somehow have a right to have the movie avatar come to my cellphone in a way that i can now convert to my h d t v and that was actually a very new concept back at the time that the whole collection of these elements i would submit is not and so it is a new concept isn't that still a concept i guess what i'm saying is a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea which isn't per impermissible under section one hundred one i mean we are court has said that much and that is true that's right right and so a new abstract idea running on a generic computer network would also be an abstract idea that i don't know i think you have to think about ok let's accept that it is edge and a new have direct idea running on a generic computer is invalid under one hundred one if that's all you have what is right women and then if you said and then if you said a new abstract idea running on a dell computer that would also fail under section one hundred one and then if you tacked on you know using a samsung monitor with that dell computer running that new abstract idea that also wouldn't pass muster under section  the idea that the focus has to be the abstract idea itself whether it's new or not to what extent are there details in the claim that implement that abstract idea in a way that we have now converted that otherwise very broad concept into something more concrete that we can say aha now that's an inventive concept that's an inventive implementation or an at least an implementation of said new abstract idea so that's what we're looking for in this claim at this point understood just to address something inherited the question there is another disclosure from the specification that talks about the specific implementations of how this works for example at appendix seventy three there certain buffer sizes and various buffers that are provided throughput rates and so forth some of those throughput rates are actually recited and they claim some of the more narrow claims for site specific combinations of features that involve and them and obviously we're deep into the pending claims here but that's a point to depending claims is an order combination including all the claims that it depends from and if you look at it it has some conventional computer components a processor a memory it's cetera it has a high definition is a million ways that i can look at content on my t v there are a million ways i can use my cellphone this pattern claims a very specific combination of components and features that was here before under oath and it's quite specific when we think about it now you call it a generalized abstract idea you can call fine cover to thought about and they came up with a specific solution and as we go down that i'm still a claim forty seven which is the independent claim that's that h p output interface it talks about a cellular system not just any system that claim was a hedging method right and if that was done on a computer that would still be no good and if the communications back and forth to set up the hedging contracts was done using a cellular network that would also be no good right well i'm not sure about that it depends on what you would need to do to implement that on a cellular network that at that time it may very well have required new technology new components in a collection that was unconventional and that would mean the last constantia so without knowing more information we just don't know and here we do have that information which leads to another problem with the district courts analysis which i'll get to one second when you go down explain to the one there's even more features here including a narrow subset of technology that's quite different order combination of the truth that's far different from the very broad abstract idea that the district court utilizes analysis thank you and thank you for  the idea and there's no real dispute that these claims are directed to the idea of sending video from a mobile device to another screen that's what the patent says in the first sentence of the abstract you in your codefendant have different articulation for the abstract idea there are different but i think a quiver right one is sending video from a mobile device to different screen and the other is converting the video side different screen or words to that fact both describe the same idea which is it would be cool if i could watch what's on my phone on a bigger screen and that would i hear from the i ask his counsel is the claimed new concept but as you are pointing out is no more of a concrete solution and sending a digital image from a mobile device to a server or sending media from a server to a mobile device so what more would you want than what  a signal coming in from a mobile device that is in some undisclosed compressed form and coming out on the other end is a series of standard video out either digital or analog basically every kind of cable that at that time you could plug into the back of your t v and in between there is nothing but a box that said two boxes really one that  encoder and that is really the magic box within the magic box because if there is going to be a specific solution here that actually converts the signal it is destined for a cell phone screen  something that you can show on v h t t v it has to happen there right how do you know this so they they've shown us the full contents of their magic box decompression and coding and that is not regard with the buffering they say buffer and throughput are determined as desired by the designer and there is no solution here to actually perform what they claim require us to achieve that out actually tried to capture other ways to do it that no one has even developed so this is nothing but a box with intervening functional results that had nothing to six of the claims that are identified most of them still have and that goes to the issue that it's really functional claiming that we have here compression decompression as we've discussed not a specific black box that is in figure three that being said if we focus on figure three of that that may be the an example that example is abstract as stated in the four night to patent column for lines forty nine through forty five fifty five which is a s to any conventional word to be developed execution platform may be used for those black boxes and ts again and a vice the processor memory and related elements such as power supply are well known and the not be described here it may be like a great description to give their understanding of the invention that's what's told to us by this path is it can be anything it doesn't matter what it is and so had four elements that were identified by the patent holder as being somewhat perhaps inventive that was taken or meteor device and there's i just say that only existed in some claims and it's a conventional fewer greater differently named modules from those in the figure so the figure is not that monster of a what's in the claims and we look at the claims given this court's jurisprudence as to whether we have an abstract idea and we do here that's again a seventy four and a seventy two seventy three so they don't get to point to the black box that can be anything that is conventional and yet to be determined according to the specifications for the other elements that they point to if just record levels compression decompression well that was just using standard examples of mpeg compression one two three four nothing new they're put into a yet to be determined or conventional box that's in the six eleven patent column six twenty two th coaching thirty five through fourteen sixty one they give you a pictorial representation with the specifications sites of how each one of these elements are conventional generic and in fact the word com to provide a converted video signal that has a display format and a signal power level appropriate whatever level that's appropriate for an external display going to what you're on or just and said earlier in terms of taking a signal this path of the claims are concedes that was conventional well known not something that was invented here so we really don't have anything in individual elements that saves us patent from the abstract idea we don't have a say functions that are not inventive but simply constitute particular choices from within the range of existing content for hard work and that's what's taken here is the generic element that don't give you the how internet patents work don't give me the specificity in the claims and again going maybe i've got a new abstract idea but it's still an abstract idea and i haven't taken it out of the abstract by appending a dell computer or a stem some  all claims stand invalid and by the way they're all based on the same abstract idea thank you counsel couple minutes court said the same thing there is zero evidence in the record of that and in fact it flies in the face of what evidence is in the record the patent office allowed to go over hundreds or prior a reference it many of which were directed to the same in iraq or ability of device of cell phones other hope household devices there was a ton of work going on in the industry directed to these very issues and yet these investors came up with something that the patent office has deemed new and non obvious and therefore not conventional  only in light of regular examination but in the face of i p r petitions which were overcome by the vast majority of these claims so to say without a shred of evidence that there's nothing new here that this whole combination was conventional is not only wrong to never actually looks at the order combination of any claims but instead focuses on individual elements cause them unconventional let me ask you does ruling in your favor on the one on one issue automatically insulate and save all of the four nine two patent claims i think of the four nine two family claims i think one of the two directions could be taken here i do think that the district court unfairly treated every single claim and that every single claim should at least go back to the district court for fair treatment even if you even if we rule in your favor you know up i do think they're all patentable that's number one at a minimum they're not unpalatable on this record and then to get to question at least some of them there are distinctions we heard again only twenty six of the claims actually recited the conversion model well those are different than the others and this claim should be looked at in the what and what now zooming one looks at the other way  you don't prevail on what you forgive them for nine to practice what is there in the other claims in the family that aren't in the appendix before i mean that aren't specifically asserted what back to where i started think about a collection of elements that involves not only just receiving some signal processing and sending it out but an h d signal that's received over a cellular network in a certain way processed in a certain way sent out to a and h d t v over an