the cyber market that problem is fraud lack of accountability so many buyers anonymous sellers not knowing each other and i unevil to get redress from one another the transactions are completed with the transaction you've spoken several times in your brief to just a small point of clarification i don't know if it makes any difference you seem to equate online with internet do you there are there  ways of making networked electronic communications without going through the internet is the internet is one of the networks that is but is not limited to claims they are not limited to the internet it's not ok members of the court found were insufficient to sustain palatability this case is a method claim built into it from the beginning for all of the hardware and the activity in the software programs that are distinguish yourself bill he had no reference to a computer and its claims this claim cannot be performed without computers and the internet or a network of software running the integral to these inventions they are primary and central to them there is a control interaction between the customers and the vendors screw the hardware on the software clearly the process results in a useful concrete and tangible result a guarantee after the communications and the interactions to the parties through the networks in the computer systems in the software products or  services providers and that's the guarantee it does significantly more than describe an abstract concept what it can abstract concepts that's a question that the court has asked repeatedly and it's a complicated question i have an answer that many people live and then i have an answer to the reverse question which is what is not abstract like to hear what is abstract or something that's too big to get a patent it's what to get just to get what's not abstract claims that  cabin to discrete applications sufficiently definite to confine the patent monopoly with and definite bounds here we have the sequence of steps set forth in the claims we have the particular temporal limitation where the guarantee doesn't attach the transaction until after it closes we have the hardware and software running the system it's a discrete invention that does not supplant preempts if the term what do you mean by too big something that isn't limited according to the laws ability an idea as opposed to a process or a thing  this is not the case of your track not the case the cyber source is not the case accenture where computers are used to make things go faster computers are used to organize data this is the case where the computers again weren't included at the beginning of the invention to do the things that are claimed you cannot rest patents from the e commerce problems of fraud and lack of accountability the guarantee that's provided by these ideas methods solve those problems this is not the case of a computer being merely to make something go faster i mean when you say and when you say i'm just trying to understand when you say that the computers were at the online transaction yes around so that the computer being used for the creation the request for and giving of a guarantee is only about that if the subject of the guarantee is a self something taking place online yes or no that's correct and when i when i try to place it in time at the beginning of the inventive process it's in response to some google's arguments that the subscribe to receiving the process of underwriting the offering of the guarantee and the binding of the guarantee at the end of the process if that finding that the patent office sound good substantial enough to put it past the what we did is we filed one that said after and i want to point out that that's a different kind guarantees and the kind of guarantee that someone gets before a transaction if you're dealing with somebody and you know that it's a red bike with blue handlebars and cost one hundred dollars fedex shipment for three days and you've guaranteed bat that's a very specific set of details that go into that particular guarantee if you offer to guarantee someone performance before the transaction which is possible as well some of those materials may be all those items may not be now so the tempura limitation isn't just a clever insert at the end of the process it actually changes what's being offered it's a very specific kind of guarantee and because it changes quite dramatically the information potentially of vailable for consideration by the underwriter that's right the rest of the steps i must say it's please give me a i'll consider giving you and then you give i mean that's that's not terribly limiting but when you add it the temporal limitation you are i think is the said providing the potential underwriter a quite different set of information that's correct and you would them very concrete the university tales are known don't forget the additional limitations of being online an e commerce transaction the specific steps but then that temporal placement of the guarantee in analyzing the old one patent i'd encourage the court to think of the computers first and the method second that's how this invention was born a problem in the computer world with the computer solution again this has nothing no similarity with the cases where you have a method claim like bill c silent about hardware computers and then maybe a system playing later in the patent that barely references computers the computers in the hardware in the software are built into this product from the beginning their fundamental not just an equal to back and forth involvement of the parties on line the product or service that's offered after that involvement is similar to the process that court entertained in the ultimate showcase of the creation of a product after a computer process like this one is almost similar to the deer case going all the way back to the supreme court certainly the integration and involvement has seen many times before which is an attempt to take an abstract idea and stake it wasn't what the abstract well there's no dispute among the parties here your honor that the abstract idea is a transaction performance guarantee and we said that's an abstract idea and but why isn't the person that came up with out in whatever three thousand b c inventing a new concrete idea it may not be patentable because obvious or anticipated but three thousand years ago that seems like a pretty novel idea computers and algorithms and specific steps and methods at every juncture that one was conceivably something you could have done with a pencil and paper this one gotta have a computer gotta have an online medium gotta do it in a certain temporal step by step fashion well i want to agree and that's by safe argument but i think the starting point sense done away with just of the invention or the core of the invention and in fact you analyze an invention by looking at its defining features of the client and you don't abstract from that to use the uncomfortable term a core just so leaving out the core and the just please go back and tell me why all the computer steps the the algorithms the step by step process does not distinguish this from bilski there are three limitations that by failing to do that this applies to online transactions the references to use of a computer and the temporal limitation i'd like to discuss them individually has a feeling when to discuss them and then i'm happy to discuss them together the online transaction limitation is the precise limitation of the court in cyber source was insufficient to create  taking an idea and saying it applies in the online world is not enough the court said and we think that's true here for the use of the computer the court has said mere general references to the use of a computer are not sufficient and we think if the court looks at the patent claim which is on a forty five of the appendix that's exactly what's going on here and i think a test a good test for thinking about computer limitations is the test that your honor proposed in your separate and i'd like to read from it this is some thirteen zero two of the opinion whether the claims this is specifically with respect to the puter limitations whether the claims tie the otherwise abstract idea to a specific way of doing something with a computer or a specific computer for doing something it's so they likely would be putting eligible unlike claims directed to nothing more than the idea of doing that thing on a computer and we think what the claim for here is precisely the idea of doing the thing on the computer because what the claim doesn't take the three steps involved and i'm if the claim is on page eight forty five of the appendix columns seventeen the three steps that are involved in any transaction performing transaction performance guarantee first receiving the request and then deciding whether or not to live by the guarantee you're looking at that's from the perspective of here's this i don't want to call it out idea because i don't think it is whatever here's this notion of third party care and he said that around a long time and you're saying just because the patents had so it would be good to do them are computers that's not good enough but isn't the patent really more specific not and it's saying look we have a problem  how do we guarantee stop an e commerce and that's this person to computer problem and here's how we're going to implement it on a computer to solve that problem and here's the different stops and particularly your  your friends talk about the timing is actually pretty compelling because if you guard here before you don't know the price of anything you don't know the quantity or anything so you may be able to get a blanket current t but you can tailor whereas if you guarantee it after you know the purchaser has bought either a twenty dollars book or a forty thousand dollar car and so you can tailor the trade in the carrot he to that why isn't specific enough to get it beyond just abstract idea put on a computer if i may really pick a response of the first part of your question to the computer then the question then respond to the second quarter your question about limitations i think that the way you described this solving e commerce problem you need to have transaction that they need to have done guarantees in the e commerce world is just another way of saying this is a path to take the notion of the invention performance guarantees and apply it in the online world and so just as cy wasn't enough to say we have an online problem how are we going to have exchange in the online world when these people are in different places cyprus and said that's not enough there has to be something more than same we're applying something to the entire community versus online transactions so i think if the court looks at the steps what the steps are putting the temple limitation to one side for a moment are the steps that are inherent in the guaranteed receiving the request for one deciding whether or not to underwrite it and then telling the requestor that they have a guaranteed truth the words of user receiving via computer processing by a computer and offering via a computer but those are what the steps really are and i think what's critical is none of those none of those paragraphs does it say how the computer will be used in any particular way and to make to us as the ch transaction and not after you would argue you don't infringe right yeah well then that's somewhat a meaningful limitation isn't it i don't think so your honor because i think dividing the world to three parts like one  really provide enough of a limitation of what and i would think that was that would be true if doing it before during or after had no meaningful distinction but i think your friend is planned out a very meaningful distinction between doing the board during or after if it may be that there are different ways that it is that there's different information that would be relevant nothing in the client talks about why the way the information or how it's going to be used for the fact that there is a special processing system  d one way that this claim clearly could have been written that would make would that would make it patentable would be to say here's the data that we're going to consider here's our wayne formula tailored to this train this or special lane for me that we've thought about for the data that's available post transaction we have a formula that's going to weigh it and come up with the answer about whether the transaction began you know not if you're not conceding that that with the it would be a lot closer case that this is that a problem  to look a little bit like the formula bills well i think the question is if this if the formula conventional or has somebody come up with something new that would be the inquiry under under bilski and under mail but here there's not even a formula to begin with them and i think in terms of the court's question earlier to use a question about how much of preemptive here at the outset of the internet there are google gained a significant advantage with its pa it in a way that nobody has thought of to come up with an answer the mere fact that something is a formula a math that can be reduced to a mathematical formula doesn't make it not patentable it may help if that mathematical formula is something that will get a pretty rank patent many times considering it a very interesting point but it's something you could do with on a piece of pad and paper it's it's a rather simple on heartbeat and stead of throwing at us whole the subjective arguments which none of us know the standard for well i don't think that whatever may be true in someone or one case is your honor i don't think that's true here because i think there is a one to one precedent for each of the arguments that we're making just as there is and i think that if you win on this case google loses  abstract idea like the it's a look at the law of nature case but the court certainly will widen mail on the cases involving its precedents involving abstract ideas including bilski and i think what the court there was looking at idea or laws of nature are these limitations sufficient to take this out of that category and i think the inquiry may be different because there may be different obviously factual context but that inquiry is quite simple and the inquiry what the court said there is is there something other than the consent conventional general means of implementing the abstract idea and we think that that's true here and let me talk a little bit about the temporal limitation because i think that the problem with i mean the problem i have been looking at mayo in this context is when you're involving a lot of nature that fundamental idea something that is not invented it may be don't think that there's that much difference between the two opinions bill speed also talked about the fact that limitations that are technologically specific which applies directly to the online limitation that my friend the wise son or routine or conventional ar enough so i've talked about the computer limitation i might urge the court to look at bank work and deal track and i don't censor because i think it's similar to i could just talk for a minute about the temporal limitation because i think the temporal limitation is quite similar to the limitation in bilski to energy had been you know bilski the patent owner said well i haven't planned the universe of only claim energy hedging and i think the same argument the kinds of information that would be flowing through the system for energy heads would be quite different than the kinds of information that would be flowing through the system for other kinds of hedges but the court said that was a conventional limitation insufficient to render the  and i think the temporal limitation here is precisely the same thing because it also an even easier taste frankly up for the reason but your honor answered that before three separate patent plans the whole universe could be covered and that's clearly not what's intended here and i think the fatal flaw is what what's happening here is the attempt to say we want to apply this notion in the online world what are the least amount of limitations that we have to statute has this additional limitation on it so although it's not in the words i think it's effectively in the words because i think this court's precedents in the supreme court's precedents are binding i don't think that those tests so the question on the notion that entering into contractual transactions which are intangible relationships a contract is an intangible is broadly speaking that this exception and that abstract idea doesn't mean generality it means the opposite of concreteness how do you fare under under that i think and clearly the government's brief is an attempt to avoid daunting line drawing problems of deciding what's too general or too big can you talk about that i think our position would be sustained under the government's approach because i still think that the government approach is looking broadly at the criteria that the court has laid out in bill c and i think under those criteria they're trying to focus them him perhaps a little bit on the feel of a situation but you know mike my friend argued in the court below that this case was just like c l s so i think it's pretty clear that this this one can either we think it's a much easier case for i'm just an idealist for every day and nobody could possibly dispute that there is a lot of there are a lot of challenges in figuring out how to articulate a standard we've struggled with that the supreme court has struggled with it is in process of struggling with it and i guess i wanted to explore with you the the new submission by by the federal government which says don't focus so much on generality focus on the nature of the transaction and roughly speaking business transactions the creation of legal intangibles contracts which i guess the surety is is the focus i just i'm not sure that that really moves the needle much and the amount of this it seems to me again maybe i'm just too steeped in this case but it seems to me saying legal creation of contracts is enough would mean that this patent would be ok even if it didn't have any of the limitations that are relied on because transaction performance guarantees produced ontarians artists or add that the government's brief is that if the subject of the thing is the creation of a legal intangible it's not enough so i'm sorry i was i was misunderstanding i'm there every yeah i don't i think that may just shift the debate to what's the legal intangible i'm not sure any of this lines welling david i'm not sure any of this line drawing is going to change the fact that it's as this court has recognized one on one requires laundry line drawing in case by case to do kinship i don't want to overstay my welcome but but we think these limitations are quite clearly insufficient under the court