my time expires i'll just like to reach an issue of first impression regarding the start of the fact of section three fifteen to reverse it would be appropriate if the court finds for and fish on the one i want to show you and any one of the other issues presented in this appeal to the pad this is the six of four that it states the structural requirements of current databases require the programmer to pre define a structure and subsequent data entry must conform to the instructor this is inefficient where it's difficult to determine the structure of the data that will be entered into the database if the claim to eventually solve that problem to get it to eighteen column to line twenty seven twenty nine self referential database at age twenty one column seventy five sixteen to twenty three stage few columns may be easily appended to the table one hundred by creating a new column definition of record the new column is that immediately available for use system records and importantly the claimed single table self referential structures are residing in each of the five appeal claims you'll see those structures described i pages twenty four and twenty five do i understand right that while that's not express them claim seventeen it's part of the claim their claim construction of claim seventeen and in that really self referential reality is actually required for all columns were is and the other is just for a single card that's correct your honor and defend its did not appeal claim construction for that means plus function claim term and claim seventeen the court found of the means for configuring said memory according to a of in this case the district court characterized the claimed inventions the concept of organizing information using tabular format the background of invention clearly distinguishes was that if the district judge had characterized the claimed inventions as a single table self referential database there would have been no need to move to maelstrom to however were the court to accept the district judges characterization or any one of the defendants six characterizations regarding the alleged abstract nature of the claimed inventions and stuff to a court should have but fails to grapple with the claimed single table self referential in structure what the district court did after independent research was concluded that rose with headers are sort of tables with heteros were conventional and cited  text books going back twenty two inches some areas but there's no disputing that data has been stored in tables for thousands of years but this case is about claims that require a very particular table structure a single table self referential table structure and i think the defendants nor the district judge offered any evidence and there is no evidence in the record that that particular structure that solve the problem identified at the outset of my argument think about having a table in which all you need is a single column or ac it is yes a single column with the same identifier let's call it as a single  i agree that there are two separate points separated by and in that piece but each one of them requires only a single refers only to a single the first one says a single column has to have a row corresponding to it and the other one says there has to be a row that contains assuming each he is kind of every here which seems to be that the assumption that  column information about all the columns in a single well so why that does not require the kind of complete self referential ality that i think the claim construction of claim seventeen doesn't give a fact require so if you focus was correct today to sixty six no two and can you tell me what are the benefits to the computer the memory the speed the efficiency the retrieval what are precisely the benefits that was smaller memory requirements second was faster data access and retrieval but the third and the one that i think the most important improvement is the fact that the claimed inventions allow the database to be changed on the fly in other words the database is not static anymore it's not a case where you predefined them are all of the fields in the database and are then stuck with it and have to literally take the thing down and turn it off to re architect it you are now able to do this as described in the specification at any point and i see and then my rebuttal time so unless there's more questions all address first the time when no one issues and then on time permitting there are a couple of new items that showed up in the great grief that i would like to address as well under section one hundred one alice teaches and this court's precedents also confirm that the important thing we need to do is to look at what is claimed and whether the claims are be cited in an abstract way  outside the reach of alice we have claims that simply reciting a computer and a memory there generic there's nothing specific about them once we get beyond that we're not even limited to a database the claims simply say that you need a computer in a memory that's going to store and retrieve information it could be a database but it also could be anything just because of the claims of the re information's stored in the usual way in in a computer where there is no necessary relation between the physical location of bits in in memory magnets call them  and the logical relation of what's what stored with this self referential ality structure to be internal organization of the information why it isn't backed up to take in alice to step terms why is that directed to an abstract idea as opposed to an improved way of an improved functioning of the computer the improvements that are identified in the specification are three fold they include smaller memory requirements faster search times and more flexibility those improvements come from something that's taught in the specification allegedly but it does not translate into the claims and if if i could just walk the court through why that's so to directly answer the question i would take you first to column one where the patent teaches what was wrong with relational databases in a relational database if we were to do a database support for example we would have many tables we have a table for the judge let me ask you that if you were the first person to come up with the idea of a relational database and you claim as a fairly good degree of detail is that an eligible but it would certainly be a very different case from this one i think i can at least need a better answer than that look you know perfectly well that there is tremendous uncertainty about what constitutes an abstract idea most of our cases and all of the supreme court cases ha claims that are easily distinguished from this one the object of this claim is a kind of software improvement in computer functionality it is something like a fresh question for us at least personally speaking i need help in understanding how to think about the supreme court abstract idea concept when the whole point from beginning to end of the claim is an improved internal process in the computer using completely old hardware  i would take the court to the first on a case in that case claim seventeen recites a series of steps that eventually lead you to coming up with a price however nested within those limitations are some data structures that say but that's one of the cases like almost all of our post alice cases in which it can perfectly easy to say that the object of the claim was the creation of legal intangibles which is contractual relations to people you don't have that so i'd like to put those cases aside i don't think tell me if i'm wrong that we have a case that is specifically about internally internal processes of a the computer i mean i think that that case i agree with would to try to that piece is a very little relevance to us here because what we're trying to decide and that's why i ask you about the relational databases is whether those are something the computer world that are not all in our pothole as opposed to things like pricy or guarantees for work online purchases or things like that which i had hundreds of years of history in some instances of being done just person to person and were somehow quicker or any differently on a computer these type of databases i don't see as having been done prior to the computer world so can you can't give me another try on one if you have the prior art relational databases and not in some very general sense of using  computer because that seems abstract to me but defined in a certain way x number of databases working relationally in a certain way the way the fire works why wouldn't that be pattern eligible if we had a relational database and you were claiming a relational database techniques you would be far less abstract than the claims are here and i if i could if i could just have the court indulge one comparison to relational databases and the claims here would be this the claims or the specification teaches that the benefit that you get from this invention is to leave all of the relational database rules aside instead of having many tables where you try to cram like things together you are supposed to throw everything into a single table a single logical table any kind of record can go in there and therefore it's going to be a sparse matrix you're not going to try to pack everything in like a relational database would so it's a new kind of database the specification suggests that it's that it's different than a relational database and the question then becomes we think this is the critical question is that teaching part of the claims which suggest the answer is no for two reasons well that's i think i'm not sure that you can answer that but i'm not sure i agree with you on that it does seem that there's enough in the two or more for example let's say we had a relational database structure for the court here and we had a thousand tables and all we did was to take one of those thousand and change it to be a table like what's in the claims so that we have ok and this is not being very helpful to me so let's just assume i don't agree with your reading of the claims i find that the claims actually specifically incorporate one database the stuff preferentially ality why isn't that a new database that is point the question then becomes with that assumption what are you asking the computer which is medically generic to do and here the computer is being asked to do things that people and i see some aspect of that here but i also see your friends argument that this doesn't just do that it improves the way the computer itself operates it takes less memory it it makes the database work better and so is not solely a case about taking something and doing a better on a computer it's making the computer work better so i still don't understand assuming i read the claims in a more specific way than you do why that's not enough so let me ask you this hypothetical thing do you do you think that the invention in the specification would be patentable if claim properly if claim properly you certainly could have a p how would you do it here you could start first by claiming exactly what's taught in the specification that would be a good start and you would need to get to something that  you need to claim the invention from the point of view of what was different than new that made the computer better faster and stronger instead of claiming something that a person could do outside the context of a general purpose computer that would make a difference it makes a difference in the court's precedents and here again the specification teaches something it suggests that you're going to get benefits if you have a single very large table the patent claims just talk about a computer and a table which could be one or more you might follow the requirements of the claim limitations for one of your tables but not for others and therefore miss entirely the claims reach that far because they're crafted in an abstract way and that's what leads us into the alice problem the brief and in the great grief that microsoft and the other defendants should be microsoft rather should be stopped because the anticipation notion that was submitted to the district court  have to decide the a stoppel issue anyway because if you got summary judgment on a question of fact and if we concluded that there existed a genuine issue of dispute that should've gone to a jury on that question of the written decision so there wouldn't have been a reason for the just record interest that all  if i need briefly touch on two other issues relating to what i want with respect the feds position regarding the single table or a table being multiple tables has changed defendants claim that really referencing what he thinks the invention i don't i don't remember reading that position as claimed maybe he was arguing that the claims ought to be limited to a single table because that's the only thing you disclose your honor and i'd be feels like something that's patton eligible and your opposing counsel nearly admitted it which i thought was very genuine of him to do he said listen if this would be a very different case if what was claimed was actually the invention that you will you people are all talking about the thing disclosed in this fact but the claims certainly feel played if it brought are just other unusual and not necessarily going to be your undoing but when you address that argument why aren't these claims a lot broader than what is in fact the thing that is the true invention that you want us all to be focusing on your honor i would point you to page twenty four in our blue brief the language in the specification is very  direct and strong in characterizing the invention of the problems as the specification is very clear about it being one single table that explains don't say that you agree that the claims are limited to one table no we do not believe that the language in the specification is limiting your honor and let you know you don't agree with the claim to limit everything you do believe the specifications limiting i misspoke i'm sorry ok we do or we believe that the claims are limited like to turn to the issue of a straw poll my minute that i have left it's significant to this case to the extent that the panel reaches the stoffel issue that the defendant sought leave to brief summary judgment on excel as a one zero two g issue however and fish had an extensive thousands of pages of evidence of conception a reduction of practice diligent reduction of practice and we would have sworn but it's also significant that in the i p r's microsoft use one of its other products visual basic to support its i p r challenges we think free man is appropriate for fact findings on whether or not they reasonably could have raised excel in