american needle was struggling with a challenge he had selling customized caps head he created a the pen doesn't claim displaying a three d right it claims displaying on line a three dimensional shape your  object over a computer network said object having a pre determined three dimensional shane shape and  a reference asserted against this patent in examination that facilitated sales on line in two dimensional form and so the claim here your honour's is facilitating sales of three dimensional objects and creating the experience for the user in computer networks of viewing the three dimensional shape of the object now does that say that you pointed us to the first phrase in response to ted well of his comment where is that where in the claim which limitation is about using the object is that the fourth for you really have to stay within the claim language itself all throughout now i read the preamble which is limiting it's limiting to a computer network it's limiting to a three dimensional shape the p t o determined that this patent was allowable over cost and based on that limitation and so those two points have to be considered throughout reading the claim and so on and i'm happy that take your honors through the claim language  shapes and you know it seems to me that there's an awful lot of objects on the on the internet computer that at the moment shapes the difference is that it was non obvious so you might want to keep telling us that and going back to what the patent office concluded but i i would suggest that you might want to focus on the claims and on the what we're dealing with here which is the abstract idea holdings upheld as valid under one all one a patent claim with generic computing elements as we have here and the gist of the court question so far is that there is some skepticism about the generic nature of these compounds and d v r holdings holds that  you take generic computing elements and until puter networks solve the problem arising on computer networks you clear not a rising on computer networks and so we fit with then the ability to use generic computing components to fit together in an ordered combination a solution arising on computer networks internet patents other cases that able counsel sites all stand for the proposition that based on evidence the court this case rule twelve of course as construe facts in the plaintiff's favor we have a finding a factual finding at the outstart of this case that  object having a previous government i'm sorry a method for facilitating sale to a general customer of an object over a computer network and quote the but these questions are not the standard at it we claim a transformational process that's what we're before the court argue there absolutely for example you know defendant does not reference that in their briefs but we fit squarely within this court manipulated and transformed into images of bones and tissue is an information age information age transformation process we fit right within that in not only the bilski opinion which the supreme court lauded in reversing as the machine transformation test as being the only test but lauded that opinion of this court the teachings of that opinion lauded adelies as an information age transformation process and that's exactly what this claima good morning i may have to use that court as a baseball fan who grew up just outside the city of chicago in the store at week i think it's fair to acknowledge what american needle is a company brought to baseball fans and i think it's fair to acknowledge the historic perspective that council was was addressing their briefs go even further back and one thousand nine hundred nine to one nine hundred forty eight when they first offered to fans a baseball cap that was replicating the team caps that were worn it's that histor perspective that actually leads to a ferment in this case because that confirms that what they've tried to claim here is nothing more than automating a longstanding commercial practice and in addition to the admissions that i think we are used in their conventional way and as this court and the supreme court have sat in on any number of times that does not amount to pat knowledgeable subject matter i want to point to just a couple of additional admissions that i think further support this conclusion and those are found that page six of the reply brief where here they're discussing it offering various three dimensional objects for sale with various design elements merchandisers have obviously done for hundreds of years on the next page they then say there's nothing wrong with the potential customer involved in the nine eighty patented math it picking and choosing among the design elements and viewing how the chosen elements look on the surface of the three dimensional object again these are american needles words and acts performed by humans down through the ages there is nothing wrong with these mental steps that's a page seven of the reply brave based on these admissions alone i think we have everything we need to fall within this court's binding precedent we have commercial activity that's been done well for hundreds of years as they say and we have mental step simply nothing but a an abstract idea that's here just to address a couple of additional points it sounds as though the court fully understands most of what we've put in our brief with respect to the abilene decision that was just that's because the test that was at issue in adelaide was overturned in bilski which was then later refined by the supreme court but not only that if you actually go back to the avidly c c p a decision that independent claims there were actually found it wasn't until you got to the deep end claim that require the data be a specific type x ray data that was calculated with a specific type of hardware a specific type of scanner that they found that there was a pattern eligible subject matter these claims are nowhere near the claims that were that were up held in the abilene decision d d r the same thing i don't think that we're anywhere near that neither with respect to the type of problem that was an issue which was a very technical internet only problem in d d r nor with respect to the solution the solution in d d r was again a technical solution there was a specific type of hardware that was operating in a specific type of way it was not just a generic solution that was offered as it is here displaying a perspective view so fine a final point is responsive to the question we also don't think that there were anything acts that were pointed out that were overlooked by the district court the district court as it sudden it summary if patten the question of patent eligibility comes down to the answers to legal questions there are no facts to result there's no need to look at the clear and go i believe that it could but but again not in cases like this and not in any of the many cases where this court has been able to affirm judgment judgements on the pleading or twelve the six motions so t really before the court but hypothetically speaking i at we have not seen any clear precedent that would outline what the standard of review should be i think that something that's instructive is possibly what this court has done indefiniteness law which is to say following that chivas standard that typically you can decide that is a question of law and you don't need to answer the question of standard of review but if it gets to the point that you do have a factual dispute  just two points your honour's picking up trying to train us question it just can't be that some cases the presumption does not apply we have we have a federal statute it applies in all cases and controversies not just not just some cases and not this one that simply cannot be the answer and i'll point to the microsoft case is clearly setting for that the presumption applies but we don't we don't proceed in this court on that basis we don't need that because this is a valid process under section one hundred one on substance and that's what we rely on in counsel's argument with purported admissions in her  brief are are taken in context of us relying on judge dykes opinion where he supports his analysis with case which defendant does not cite and it explains it in this court now but take that for what it's worth me cyber source six fifty four f third at thirteen seventy three and judge guy relies on the case for the principle that method steps performed in the head are perfect for the perfectly allowable under section one a line cyber source thank you thank you thank you