order combination otherwise provides some kind of technological advancement and so i'd like to point first to you and this is this was decided on a motion for judgment on the pleadings of the record before the court was just the intrinsic record  i'd like to point to the specification of the two patents themselves say they share a same specification and i'd like that for to start off with page forty one of the appendix which is contains the background of individual member of first control for submitting a comment about said individual member and a second control separate from the first control for sending a message other than the comment to that individual number and those  went back to  patent and there are nine ten is the information about the member of nine twenty it's actually second control for sending a message to a member and item one twenty five is the first control for submitting a comment on them but we facebook argues that all of these individual things existed even in the computer environment before this point in time including the you know sending a computer message over a telephone line so what about putting these components together makes th combination of those elements that make for both inventions made them both not conventional and non obvious and in terms of just like to point out specifically an allegation but what did not exist and this is again was it was the topic of the prosecution history is combining these elements ok this is the fastest the claim talks about features and that combination of features did not exist anywhere else the individual features in the h t m l tags obviously exist that's out with me but putting that together in this form and particularly creating a consistent set of those for a group of members was something the web pages existed certainly weapons and so so what about is it what about the fact that you flip addresses that were prone numbers or for background information regarding the person in a particular order makes this a new and novel invention it's not the order of the armor it's not the order i mean mention it's combining these pretty now it's that they don't plus it's actually it's the combining of the both the first control for posting a comic and the second control for sending a message combining those things have not been done before because there was no belief that it was any it served a intended purpose but in this context and this is going to was ninety nine before there was any social networking in any of that we were setting this up to make it easier for people to communicate and post and with and to talk about groups members of the group and this was a case doctors and so combining those two components on a webpage both a post comment control and a sent a message control provided open up means of communication that didn't exist before fire these weapons and doing it consistently for it for the for doing it is a set monfort inconsistently for all the members of the group and hence the communications ability with that particular group and between members of i did that conceptually different from that special and interest group chat implementation used there was different than the implementation you see here and and going back and again i mean not everybody is trying to figure out how where the stench is between an idea and an implementation of an idea  for example in a non computer context and ideas i method for preventing a chair from tipping over when i think that that is an idea it's not it's too broad  its air from leaning over it's just one particular way same thing here when one to pad the district court held it's just talking about creating web pages for members that is definitely its purpose but it is not unconventional wasn't known at the time and so what is it about your mechanism for communicating among members by using web pages that wasn't no first of  all i don't believe that it's necessary to go step two i think that the main argument is that it's not just that the claim is not just directed to a idea in the abstract it's directed to a specific so that the non conventional and inventiveness doesn't apply if it passes step one under step two it's the entire combination combining all those elements is new and again at the time and then a complaint was filed we haven't had more recent decisions of this court that sort of clarified what kind of allegations or including allegations of non conventional within the complaint reiterate the ineligibility of these claims as your owners are well aware in burma there are two sets of claims there was one set of claims that was found to still be ineligible and there was another set of claims that perhaps had eligibility because within the claims themselves they called out the inventive step one was storage and the idea that you weren't really you know storing all this redundant information and the storage of the non redundant information or loud the computer to move faster and so improved the technology itself similarly with the second set of dependent claims there was something about one to one editing which again improved the computer itself potentially by allowing for th those were in the claims themselves and what the court found there was because potentially the inventive step was in the claim language it was then up to the court to figure out whether or not in fact it was conventional nothing like that happens here none of the for one thing we've actually never understood from appellant what the inventive stat is we're simply told it's the combination when asked at the district court but is your inventive feature what is the inventive bit mister why  read the entire claim into the record there's never been an identification of something which is inventive instead all of the elements are performed on generic computer components the source didn't give me just say that the inventive aspect was was the fact that they aren't it allows for this interactive communication well interactive communication is not inventive interactive communication is simply the idea of having the ability to send a letter to someone or the ability to talk on the telephone that's a problem that exists in humanity with humans it's not a computer related problem like d d r it's not a technological improvement like in fish or basket or anything of that nature instead we're talking about a standard human problem of wanting to be able to communicate with people potentially in two ways and that's nothing different from for example appearing at the front desk of a hotel and saying i'd like to leave a message for m that he joins me for breakfast at seven am that's the first interface the receptionist then writes the message down and potentially sends it up to the room and also calls mr mead and leaves a message that says that if there was communication on our case law no your honor the case law actually specifically calls out improving the technology itself somehow improving the computer not simply another way of doing something that was done off of the computer now onto a computer the very notion that i can walk down every single element of the claims using the hotel analogy shows that this is knapsack the idea that is then implemented on a computer and the specification at issue here the same occasion for both especially in column twelve starting at line twenty one and extending all the way into com thirteen spells out that this is all to be done on a general purpose and puter us related ip our one that is the one to has been instituted and we're into the next process and for the six three one the institution decision is due i think in two weeks so it's right on the heels of that as well want to tune one of three are not one to one so simply saying that my patent was issued because the federal circuit found that there were missing elements in another patent and my now has those missing elements that at eight thirty eight f there thirteen zero seven which specifically called out the one of two and one of three arguments made by the appellant saying over and over how novel his claims were were in fact irrelevant that was the word used by th that allegation in the complaint actually has no meaning here and therefore doesn't take it out either and even either in the eight tricks case which illustration we came down or in berkshire to say now there's a question of fact and we need to go and deal with it instead onventional that's correct your honor and in fact the specification maintains over and over that these are conventional pieces of equipment used in conventional ways distinguishable from bascom for example where in that order combination said i'm going to stick the filter somewhere else that's what makes this combination different from other combinations that's not true here in fact the ordering of the steps has only to do with how the information comes in for the second patent the best analogy actually that i could come up with and you can tell it's happening in my life right now is for college students and how almost all college students have a chalkboard and a post it note pad on their door the door is essentially the home page sided in the claims the front desk of the dormitory has a database which is just a list of where all of the students live for example ms keefe lives on the first floor of freeman hall at wellesley that's my that's my address and then the home page is at the front door of my dorm room which shows one o one it shows my roommate deena it shows my name it has the chops board for a comment something everyone else can see and it has a piece of paper the second interface for writing a note that can be slipped under the door but that's a message and the way that is probably the most detailed analogy i've ever heard in this courtroom but i thought i'd get the point thank you will be on i always try very hard to never use an analogy that someone can say you missed an entire element or you missed a step and this one actually tracks all the way down if you follow it again reiterating that this is a human problem simply put onto a computer my learned opposing counsel also really had because there isn't unlike almost all of the cases that have come down since november or so since these research filed all of those focus on and identified independent element of inventiveness and then looks to is it in the claims and does it actually distinguish from a human problem that doesn't improve a computer that doesn't exist here we don't have any identified element we simply have an argument over and over that it is this combination but in no it tell us how and similarly using that to a media case we have to be told how in the claim itself not simply that someone could figure out how to do it unless your honour's have any other questions  thank you very much appreciate your time and an interest thank you first i'd like to respond to my learned colleagues assertion that the improvement that's required is a technological improvement i think these are holdings probably set forth that an improvement in the problem is you need to the internet is sufficient it doesn't have to change the way the computer itself works it doesn't change the memory doesn't have to change the electrical machinery well just now you're missing the point i think of asking and d d r they're not it it's not just because you're doing this uniquely on the internet that it gets ranch differentiates you the question is you've respect to the comment that the invented features are not set forth in the claims they are as as as i read for in the one nine to patent the specific combination of controls on the web page and creating a set of can consistent my pictures you have to keep adding limitations and tilled it does that and then it then once that happens it's the entire combination that becomes different from the prior art operates differently what that stand difference of standard is between  is i don't understand but if something isn't dented or something the in the event and this i think the opposite is is conventional and well not conventional means not that it's obvious that is if the combination of elements is not obvious to put together then that combination of elements must be invented because otherwise and it's certainly inventive if it didn't exist before and it