examiner only one of the three rejection at issue was the male alice to step framework test step one of that task required transmission solo transmission of information is no right it includes a transfer of information but it's specific information a claim specific i don't think we should get held up on the fact that it involves data transmission that passing back and forth of information oh in this case the the examiner never really identified the abstract idea they just highlighted everything that was basically not a hardware limitation which as we just looked at is a lot of a fundamental confusion in the logs like it could be done over the phone where a person says can you please give me some information to create a questionnaire that you want to you know pose question participants and then back and forth they collect the information and then they create this survey questionnaire and then they you know that could all be done over the phone for example with that  asking and receiving of very pieces of information to create a final question air that could all be done over the phone and so that couldn't possibly be what makes that path eligible it has to be something else that we're using a remote server in conjunction with an inner internet they serve a manager and we are creating a service through these interactions and that was never done before and then once we create that survey we're able to host it on the internet they serve a manager and that allows them to build or survey manager it is akin to a server as has  in the processing and there's no case if it's a can't be in the processing in the computer just being used st traditional purpose receiving data analyzing the data outputting data nothing has as i understand it nothing is being done to the harker the computer itself is just being used it's more well with respect to the hardware but the claim as we surveyors i'm talking about all the various limitations in a claim for example one of them is there is an interaction to select a participant group and that computer we're claiming the processing improved protecting logical processing in mc are always the same situation it was the processing not the computer processing going on he permitted to be hosted and then once hosted the inner bed based survey manager is able to facilitate the appropriate participants to gain access to the known routine or conventional here there should be no doubt that that is the case there is something more and that's something more is in the findings in conclu conclusions in the record from the board there's certain limitations in the claim processing limitations were found non obvious since the inventive bringing in concepts of but we've kept them separate well the supreme court said it was the crux of step two and if that's the case the other one stepped in with an obvious question not a step to do is it is whether the claim to recite something more than what is well known student well understood routine or conventional and it also has to be something that's a lucky abstract idea exactly so if what you're pointing to is being novel in this case the board found the abstract idea to be performing surveys that is clearly wrong because the claim is not directed to performing surveys but if that's the abstract idea the balance of the claim remains to be considered for the inventive concept and here the board found limitations in claim twenty processing one to be non obvious and that by definition must establish that those limitations which were not part of the yes you're on a magic i thank you and may it please the court mr thomas patent application seeks to claim an ordinary survey done on ordinary computer surveys are not patent eligible subject matter as the specification itself says that appendix fifty three surveys have long been part of economic commercial and political life nothing in the claims technical limitations moves them beyond the abstract the computers are described in purely functional terms so something is novel eligible area so in that case it was and it was a financial statistical analysis that's not something that's patton eligible here i don't think that's what we have going on here mr thomas's application claims simply just doing a survey on a computer in the computers are described in purely functional terms as computers that do the things necessary to automate the survey function so i don't think one needs to delve into the  the exact line between one hundred and one and one of the three analysis here indeed in fact mr thomas is brief at page twenty five dollars admits that the remote server element of his claim which is the element that does most of the computing work is in fact a generic computing device the purported advance of mr thomas's invention is simply automating an ordinary survey on a computer discords repeatedly held that that kind of subject matter is not pa board squarely dealt with the tension between what i want and one of three and said notwithstanding that we think this is subject matter ineligible i think it could also be helpful to look at appendix twelve and i'm sorry  thirteen and fourteen where the board discusses which aspects of the claims it was saying weren't discussed so it fourteen weren't found in the prior art it says requesting identification of one or more it's always a problem when the patent office can't apply the abstract idea or inquiry properly but it's not forming a survey is not a survey it's a method for creating and hosting surveys so if we look again back to step t we see that what was considered was only two things performing surveys of the abstract ideas and then what else did they look to in that three hundred and ten words they are creating something that was not created before but we have many opinions where something was a legislate created is that this is not related to the war you can be familiar with electric power group opinion believe so that's an opinion where nobody disputed that that system for displaying information that was collected through a whole host of sensors that were measuring different conditions across a large power grid were all you know where all this information was being collected it was being combined together with distilled and analyze them that ultimately stored and then presented on the display some coherent way for a person to look at and understand it get a feel for the entire condition of the power grid and even if that was something that it never been done before the whole scheme of collecting information storing information displaying information for some person to use deemed to be directed to is simply an abstract idea  be too result oriented to be anything more than just the abstract idea of ultimately collecting transmitting storing displaying in motion you know i think i think that's one of the fundamental problems i see is that the character is characterization of the abstract idea what does that really do to the claim in this case it appears that  it basically captures three hundred and eight words other than remote server and that seems to be completely unfair in the n c r all case that was processing limitations they were effective core wireless was also information driven displaying information on this is in the information technology world we're living in these are what the inventions are and if if it's continuously found that calling something an abstract idea means you can completely in disarray all the processing limitations of the claim that would seem to be the real travesty in this case that's what happened and that's why there's no real analysis under step two because they just ignore everything other n be considered as a whole and just because there was a finding of abstractness somewhere in the claim doesn't mean all the limitation should be considered preemption should be a guy post and there's no reason why this claim