to illiterate blind children which is really not done and for the first time she recognized th never been done before over centuries of teaching arabic at least we couldn't find any methodology that's ever been shown where where other forms of feeling a particular shapes of letters or numbers have been done there has been braille there is a reference done is they haven't taken a shingle symbol and put it at the end of every word this means that instead of coming up once every twenty eight times very useful for children that have this disability and are learning the language but that i don't know that that answers the question of whether you are still just  this is also a unique case in the fact that we're relying on two separate occasions that were not before the board  thirty two forms according to her teach and anyone who reads the claim knows that at the end of each letter you have this precise shape and all of them so it simplifies education that no thirty two shapes were there any rejections other then under section one zero one yes also under section one zero three and i believe of teaching arabic to the blind that is the type of idea that the supreme court has that it should remain in the public domain so that so that others can build on it the board correctly applied the alice to step test when it found the claim inventions and eligible here and i would just point out that the board specifically recognize that this is the these inventions may have utility but it's sad that this is just not something that the supreme court in vision should be  finding and the finding was that it be even if the tailpiece is useful or even if it's something that had never been done in the arabic language it is still a piece of punctuation just like a curve it denotes the beginning of a word in arabic or a dot that provides vocalization directions to the reader and essentially that it has very little palatable way because it's like specification and it didn't see much that was described in the specification about that tailing goal the board also had the fact that there are other items of punctuation that were claimed in described in the specification they were very sort of routine  had been done in the arabic language for a long time and this court case law although it does require the board to do an analysis if it's going to discount a limitation is simply being printed matter that the they're categorically ineligible the board evaluative what the precise claims that were the issue here just like it does with any other invention that comes before it i do think that in this case copyright would have been lect i think i have a hard time with the fact that you sort of lump the two claims together i mean clear that we do have the physical construct with respect to that that teaching materials as opposed to come up with an objection that the concept is abstract is something disturbing about that observation it there are a lot of other observations one might make if in fact there is one of the very many points which are included in the claim that there is an arguable inventive concept in one of them because we know that since you went to three refers to the invention is a whole and not to any particular inventive concept and this is what's troubling to me about this solution i would disagree with the court that the examiner was silent about the inventive concept i believe the examiner did in the board adopted specific findings that the that there was that after and that there was nothing in the specification or otherwise that they could find that imparted anything beyond the abstract idea of teaching arabic to the b