quote which is not the skewed on this appeal it's the price and other terms of the transaction in sufficient detail to constitute an offer capable of acceptance it's also not the speed hoped then could there be infringement on this record if the terms that come back comprise enough that there would be but by their terms which you get from lending tree is a explanation that this is just a pre clearance process that we verification but that is also in our patent the fact that you and i have a contract that's binding and we say it's subject to you know the interest rate being this or that be verification of verification of information it is because when the buyer presents those documents lending tree is not permitted to say we need more or we're doing or it's this different terms or we need some extra stuff the definition of that is not  disputed you're on and it's also not the spirit it that you simply cannot return to this offer capable of acceptance unless you have some way of integrating the central computer with the vendor computers so that there's some agreed upon in advance protocol  claim sixteen which is not an issue here but the claim itself sixteen talks about assembling all of the information for a quote and a column six it actually says that the special software that has to be in sta advanced at the vendor computers to do this has to be appropriate for the variety of goods and services by those inventors wish to set up the network and would change as new goods and services come into existence and old ones  this continue why do you need to do this because if you're ordering carpet you need the software in there to calculate the square footage and figure out what under padding at the installation date if you're entering type jayde resistors you need the information that goes with relevant here is what they call the implant terminals where it went out and pulled down stuff from what they call an implant terminal in no less than three places in the fast documents at eight nine forty two at eighty nine fifty three and a n fifty four it specifically states that are let's do it as querying a parts database and it says if you want to buy spark plugs you know type three spark plugs fifty cents a piece it returns a bunch of those to the buyer the buyer then computerized form of things that were happening in the brick and mortar world the district court says that but that's a different issue you're out of the way and i'm glad you asked that question because the next point i want to make is how did the district court come to where he can come to with the court time to compare that they told the trial judge or argument we really don't have time to go through claim charts of those and then not quoting verbatim but it's essentially the same and the trial judge clearly running got the where he got by disregarding the limitation for a quote we agree that the trial good ruled anybody could take the brick and mortar stuff and put it on a computer but that still doesn't give you the quotes because the brick and mortar referral services that we turn cross they can't how  did he get over the idea that a quote was not returns if you look at page eight fifty five day fifty six the trial court weighs out the differences between the the prior art and the and the claim but it claims that issue he lo the claims together and said you see this that i'm fifty five to fifty six he says well look he says basically what the defendant said the court says after claims are essentially computerized filter filtering was old computerization results that we've been obvious to computer i still think that we're not appealing well that what's wrong with that they think there's nothing wrong with that statement except if you computer is the brick and mortar filtering you are missing a system does not a chain of the terms of a contractual offer from a remote database and bring them back and chant because you need to have this pre established protocol this the scribe in five places and our p correct your eye but what the i'm not give you is the a b a will not say to you give me all the details of exactly what you need tell me everything about your case i'll go out to some vendor someone who is that you don't know and i'll give you a quote they don't do that you couldn't do that by computer at the time because you needed these printer stablish protocols are leaving certainly would want to know whether you wanted a plaintiff's lawyer or a defendant's lawyer or whether you had a commercial case or whether filed and in that the skosh and the authors of past years later are the scutching what are some of the problems that they need to improve apart and they actually have this discussion that they've now the scabbard if the ten years of working on things the what they need is a w to publicise constraints and responds to return counter opera structure for the evaluation meaning that's the real africa with the constraints on the terms of the this is us f the that was discovered because the fast system itself particular argument have a second point i want to make the federal circuit always had common sense than the supreme court certainly wasn't suggested that we lacked common sense of course combination whatever it is and the fact that coinstar said the motivation can come from a broader universe if you will there's not in london a the need for the resulting combination to have all of the plane limitations and what we're saying is to quote the only second point i want to make on this obvious this issue is that this whole idea of the many problems which the defendants have based the entire case on in the trial judge ruled upon a very simple answer which which should not be lost in this is that the problem did not exist the e commerce references the only two references that have to do with purchasing of goods or services over a network at all or  the other stuff is documents searches that the fees are agreed upon advance that that infest nothing recognize the too many problems what happened here is the only way you get there from the too many problem is in the start one of those e commerce reference the documents searchers that have this you have to put that problem into the e commerce reference right fast the fact but the document that you're getting that problem from the document searching system is already hearns forward solutions it discuss that solution to the problem which didn't exist in the first place not to mention the fact that the very purpose of the e commerce reference is we're at the access and then the skum puta system can narrow down and give you the best runs if you can search people on purpose that had better was you would destroy the purpose so the error is that what really happened here we believe in a nutshell what you really studied the trial court's opinion is that the first error was that he read a limitation out of  commerce with the problem the problem didn't exist and what the trial judge really did to get over that is sort of the three decade outdated trucks of the invention test they used to be these you know twenty thirty years ago the crux of the invention he basically said one two three thirteen fourteen one valid claims one two and three were asserted against one of the defendants service magic there is no appeal from those determinations we motion with your honor's asking the court to dismiss service magic from the case at this point because there is a specially no dispute that there is no pending valid claims being asserted against them there's been no disagreement from from s s t's position on and so as a practical matter  anyplace and then even if you get that where do you get a motivation to combine all these elements into the claimed invention let me address both of those thank you we are here on the record before judge difficulties there is no but the user would have to fill out a separate purchase form contact the vendor and consummate the whole transaction outside of the mill you of this invention that's not necessarily it would return along with identifying the lawyer in the example we've been using here it would say and by the way he generally charges three hundred to five hundred dollars an hour and then you'd contact him and it's a nine for three what would happen is the the the the buyer would specify what they wanted the specific part they wanted and exactly how much they wanted that would go into the fast system the fastest and head of variety of different eight eight fast receives a request for a quotation checks to see what vendors might supply the product and sends a request for quotes to all the vendors who carry the product went to the quid comes back from the vendor and then continues vendor separately and negotiate the deal the actually quote had its facets and had its own ability to do that eight nine four three if i may read your honor this is this is from the fastest and as well substantial has enhanced ms to this basic flow been implemented in particular the deliver the is any of this in the district court's opinion is any of this in the district court notice no the district court when an entirely different way but go ahead well know your honor just that we cleared the district court's decision to establish didn't focus in with this granularity on the specific part on the specific part that was cited to it but it did point out no he said nothing more then the market would have led one to computerize this kind of a system well the systems we had didn't do that well again focusing on the fastest total we're not really going that we're not limited to the district court opinion as i'm of course presiding judge knows what we're trying to decide whether his judgment it is supportable or not so make your point the fast system at the un the fastest fair system could come back in a different way to it could it could come back and it was a specific application one four three with the fastest specifically allowed the vendor to reach a wider with the with the buyer with the purse that was buying that's described on a nine for three now with respect to the question of what the district court did the district court did what we think is exactly appropriate in this case what it looked at in the terms of the person of ordinary skill and at the tools and that the art that was available to the person of ordinary skill there is no dispute and this is because this is  there's no dispute that a person of ordinary skill that would be within their can but there was no technical limitation for them knowing about it there's no dispute that the brick and mortar systems had filtering systems that the brick and mortar systems themselves allowed the buyer to specify exactly what they were looking for allowed the put the broker to respond exactly with what they were looking for and to put a pre determined maximum just so that we're clear the brick and mortar systems if you want to get a home contractor or you want to get a social services those  but his argument is not a filter so it's his argument is well process something that is so with respect that it's that of just focusing on the quote fast clearly indicates and we have the order form as part of the record the when a the supplier that received that did respond to that and had the ability to be able to fulfill that quote again i'm focusing on a nine for three which describes that so that's a quick system we haven't talked to a lot about the i quit system quit system of course the buyer knew in advance the buyer knew in advance exactly what everything would cost and certainly i quest this him when you queried you pick the database they were buyer filters you could pick one database that's one vendor you could pick three databases that's three vendors those and limiting the number of responses you going to get back and you'd say i'm looking for an article of a certain type at that returned articles not quotes right i got your honor it's not a quote but what it is not a group of it reflects it reflects that buyers were making specific requests and getting specific returns with members attached so that they knew when they got that response from the vendor they could say this is how much it's going to cost me to get this but i agree your honor that's not a quote but the fastest it was  does not require it doesn't even contemplate that the transaction is going to be completed by the claim it just requires that the response of the request for quotation there is another point here which i  be i want to make sure i answer your honor's question but one of the most important parts is that what because there is no dispute about the validity of claim thirteen that is to say the district court found claim thirteen was invalid and on this appeal there has been side of it we that we are not we are not the position to say that actually fast did everything what we're what we're saying is for example what we can say is that fast had a predetermined maximum that's claimed fourteen when we were saying that the article from the association of computing computing machinery that's the filtering stuff that is that's correct that's the filter that's the filtering stuff so what the court said is look the language of the prior talks about quotes there's no argument now about what that is or what that could be the question is whether one skilled in the art looking at this plethora of prior art just on these systems would say well i understand what this is this is a system of submitting requests for quotation clearly in the language of what's the motivation to put all this together i was not the internet was most just a being born i like your term nascent so at that point where does what's the motivation to the market force to bring all this together as the district court said but i think you're on the proof is in the pudding which is that the fast the i quit systems are examples of what was going on in the market people were saying look and by the way that verbally conceded he conceded going on there seem to be different than what's going on in the claimed invention but we don't think so your honor what's going on is that buyers and vendors are having communications with each other through a central network were that's what's happening in the brick and mortar situation that's what's happening in the i fast and the quest system at the brick and mortar situation you have an awful lot of mental filtering going on here right some mental decisions as to which attorneys you're going to refer that's true in the as well as in the for example evidently the person i reach on the phone is going to send me their brother in law in their best friend right that's part of the filtering that is part of the children and of course i don't think that's part of this invention but how is that implemented by the computer within this is that we're talking about sure so for example examples fast talk the fast documentation before you talk about the relational database when you put your  and fast the first thing that fast did is not send out the query to twenty thousand vendors it was a relational database this is discussed in the art and as a relational database it first said wait a minute who are the carry this product most recently let's query those people first that's filtering now just really clear this is a pre nine hundred ninety five started in the late eighty's system and this is a system that made a decision and said you know what we're going also was filtering so in your answer your honor's questions these filtering systems involving puts at least in the fast system were being implemented as you could you could say that the motivation to combine inventive the brilliant idea the early idea that they had to make this patent and it's a pity that it was so obvious well i guess i would have been your  answer i wouldn't want to concede that it was inventive to be able to combine these sorts of filtering and communicative systems with what was a brick and mortar system we think that was obvious but yes your honor that is the motivation everyone was doing it that more  systems to computers none of that is stated below given the record in given what is clearly the motivation milking the market movement not just in one thousand nine hundred five ninety six but well before that in the early ninety's for these communication systems and couple of questions and the other are please discussion an infringement issue let's assume for argument's sake that we happen to agree with you that obviously this issue and therefore the infringement question that you raised you know i think that under the case of the cited technically if you find the because there's no dispute about claims one two three and thirteen beeman valid they're not an appeal if you find clete cl records and the spirit given in the declaration from james dotson given the documentation for lending tree we would we would want this court to reach a decision and say we find the patent invalid and by the way in addition there was no support that decisions that i've read from this court seem to suggest that once the court gets reaches a gating item it can decide not to reach other items or it may has the discretion to be able to say we're going to reach these other decisions namely the infringements issue and we think frankly thirty cents whatever it is they send that to the buyer the buyer selects that and then fast then negotiates with the vendor and mr stern is right they can order it fast says i would like now this product shipped the database is that is just an inventory parts database query at that point the vendor does not even know who the real buyer is it's just the database query but more importantly and judge rader you hit the nail on the head and i believe your first question to mr starr more importantly than at all is this is not that we're coming up and arguing about a fact finding after trial about whether or acquit was retried or not what happened here was not a five think that a have had the filtering because you know one four hundred one contract is to call you up so you can get the best deal the whole purpose of the computer search engine technology that they rely upon will sto of that problem so it makes little sense to believe that when i replaced legal research in books with westlaw that because i only searched a few books and i didn't have been a human bad with the search millions of articles that i would  just the way fast did so it existed twenty sixteen years or so before and was fired the question is not whether it's obvious to put this unique feature of that unique feature the question is in order to come up with their claimed do you need to recognize there's a problem on the vendor side with the with the system blowing up out of control as we pointed out in a brief in the secondary considerations i think i think the rule is you're right in the trial judge made this in the record yes the trial judge made this cursory finding but i think we in fact didn't match the he claimed features to the to the commercial success because we had specific statements from lending tree saying that this technique of is narrowing down in avoiding certain vendors was a cheater beer commercial success in expected results in the licenses internet existed since the seventy's there's all that in this record in this appendix showing i think seventy eight or seventy died to buy and sell stuff would try to buy and sell stuff it was are all done buying and selling it's right in a three to eight that buying and selling over a computer was that little it's in if you want to read the terms you had a central database and if you wanted to do searching for remote vendors you searched far and wide to get the best deals that was the whole point of what they were doing unless there three years with experts on their side with our patent and no one thought to look there they've never presented anything why not mr