of the washington state bar you know under washington state rule for professional conduct eight point three that a lawyer who knows that another lawyer is committed a violation the raises  substantial questions to that lawyers on a state should informally appropriate professional authority if you filed a complaint for the examiners misconduct in making a statement that was clearly and on and meant to say was incorrect yes that to me so the main thrust of my arguments throughout the appeals in this case were that the p t o did not provide any evidence for the thirty five u s c sec for one zero one rejections fact the examiner cited some prior art where the user thought raced to generate experiment designs on a computer however there's a lot of differences between web enough so i can operate that you can modify it in order to produce experiment design that you specify the client grammars and it's a computationally difficult problem and by that i mean there's no  experiment design parameters to the experiment designs represented by the templates and in the process of actually generating these templates which is all describe the facilitated use of orthogonal rays for experiment design and practical situations including web testing experiments where things are done pretty rapidly can you help clarify for me which matching really me is to me no it means this is described in a dependent claim i believe its claim two or three matching means finding orthogonal rays there would be suitable to modify and the signature allows one to rapidly compare your design parameters to a experiment design and code it within a template so that you can quickly search otherwise the searching is  very time consuming you know how to i mean there can be literally thousands of different possible modifications of any given our sagal right so so this technique increases the efficiency to allow you to find optimal first near optimal experiment designs and under a second we're just days or weeks or you know even longer periods of time for brian russell for the elderly as the examiner of the board recognizing concluded web trends claims are broadly directed to abstract ideas and the application of abstract ideas on generic computers this renders the claims so then he would have to do something under step two so he would have to that identify something that was not conventional well understood or routine when he says the air examiner erred in his understanding of a template and then under step two it looked to see if any of the additional elements whether together as a word or combination individually provided anything beyond any inventive concept beyond the those abstract ideas and so the board looked to the claim language itself and the additional elements were a computer system and a stored program that computer system and the stored program there's no information in the claims about any specificity of those computers and then it looked to the done in generic computer so looking to the previous case law of this court the because the claims are directed to abstract ideas and basically just tells the practitioner to apply them on a generic computer that cannot save it from the ambit of being an abstract idea and not patentable under one the one with respect to the argument about the templates again claim one is the language of play one is very broad and it just says identifying templates and assigning factors interactions to columns in templates again this court has found that collection and analysis of information is directed to abstract ideas and there's no there's no detail on so what could go back to my place what what could he have he would have to perhaps conventional he could have claimed perhaps if there was a non conventional our arrangement of the memory and one to find something that one would never have been able to find before i think we would have to go through the analysis to see whether or not that process is something that could be done by human on pen and paper or whether it's a mental process how that was applied on the computer if it's just generically applied on a computer well computer can do anything so the entire innovation here is actually  doing various kinds of data analysis and probability analysis two and introducing a measure of distance so that you want to get some mathematical sense the closest thing  and nobody had ever been able to make the selection process that efficient before  not enough to take it out of the end that of being an abstract idea why now why now because again in this case running running and old algorithm really really fast might well be different from running a new algorithm hypothesis it's new algorithms that's what makes it new the supreme court has also found that a new algorithm run on a generic computer would still be patented eligible under the abstract question which was the so the application of a new algorithm if that algorithm is based on mathematical principles that could be done as a mental process but the computer allows it to be done more efficiently or quicker then then if that's an abstract idea the increasing the speed of it and it doesn't take it out doesn't take something that's already an abstract idea and take it out of that and it now you had part of your hypothesis was this idea about a distance vector which may be some kind of new information or something that might be patentable as depending on how it's claimed by the applicant because that might be something that has never been discovered before need evidence well you need evidence about is states a fact in the world like something that is like whether something that is not abstract a particular computer was  conventional right but to characterize a template where it's not defined except at this extremely high level of generality that's not a fact about the world that said about the meaning of the term template but bear in mind that all the aspects of the template are claimed in the dependent claims but you didn't argue the defendant claims separately i think i have argued throughout the briefing that all of the claims were s y rejected without evidence and there's no indication that any of the details of the dependent claims or even the temple itself was considered in the search and they talk about the fact that we may work and got rejected without evidence what evidence exactly well for example the identifying abstract concept here is the use of something mathematical use of orthogonal rays for experiment design where is the evidence that this is in any way mathematical we don't agree to what i get about the term mathematical it was a selective information that's sitting in a library but if you say a hundred and seventeen thousand members in this library currently selecting the ones you want what more is in this claim except you know doing it extremely fast because the library is fairly big right you know and i have a complicated set of selection criteria the thing that allows me to to increase the efficiency so much is don't see you again any evidence cited anywhere in this rejection so even even if you say that the temp of the temple is a data structure but if you say it's