right that's exactly right ok we're saying that there's a specific way of going about doing that which is to take that data parse it whole other matter data in divided into the smallest block of information that makes sense based on what the function the sake of argument that that really is different that doing a document document or page by page is somehow different how is just making that done in a in a computational format and doing it on a computer why does that add enough well it's this it's it is not saying process it in its processes yes i and some undisclosed way using a computer it's saying have the computer go through the following steps to decide how to divide up the data and how to assign those processing tasks across the cloud and that's what's different so the only thing that would be missing is the actual code written that says ok this is how you actually do that and i don't think we're the point of saying associate sitting in warehouses going through boxes and i would decide whether or not we needed debates and something on a document by document basis or whether we needed to the disk to produce something as that was held in the normal course so it would be you on a topic by topic basis why isn't that what normally done well i han't right so so for one there is a big difference between a large volume electronically sort of ration and paper documents and there's all kinds of we're not talking about what processing on the documents we're talking about how do you decide how do you process that batch of information in divide out those processing tasks themselves to different computers so it's it doesn't really lend itself to a real world and they'll a g because you're talking about trying to process large volumes of information very quickly and doing that more quickly by putting it in the cloud where you're basically saying in real time very quickly soon as you computer are ready for the next page here's the next page or if it's something that needs to be processed on a document basis soon as you don't have this document here's your next document so this is not broad functional claiming of the sort of the many cases that have that have come before this this court that you basically says here's a commercial idea or here is an economic principle and says go do it on a computer with a whole processor with code this actually in the claim says these are the steps that the host computer will  so much that it's a new particular structure it's a new particular process that the computers use within that structure and i don't think there's any appreciable difference between those two things because they're both getting at the same problem which is we don't want to allow broad functional claiming of economic principles or commercial principles we want there to be something technical we want a technical solution to talk prop and that's exactly what you have here you have the question why how do we actually how does the computer actually go about doing that how does it divide those tasks up and how does it give it to the different computers that are within the within the cloud so i think that and i don't see how it's question when you when you make that hers you object to the fact that that there was no differentiation what so what is it and that apparently well i think one example is the bait stamping in by page example so one of the complaints is sort of well i would you know what does that mean how could you how do you know what the smallest pot would be in any given instance so it's then even going one step further and saying well this is the exact it for this process to be performed this is the small supply so it really it really then there's nothing left to do other than code that example code that that process so i think that addresses it there's also issues of preemption that h p has brought up and throughout the dependent claims you have various limitations on the types of computers in the types of additional limitations well but if those additional imitations narrow the scope of the claims and there is less that is being preempted because one is preempted is what the claims claim not the broad ideas that are you know maybe set forth as background  specification it's the claim we have to look at where the claims actually claim so the more dependencies you put in then the more things that are covered in the more alternative ways there are to do it but preemption aside looking up abstract it's not abstract because unlike claims to just say do that on a computer it sets forth the technical process for how you go about dividing that information and how you allocate those tasks to the performing at so we would have to go so far as to say if it involves data processing at all it's an eligible and there is no precedent that would that has gone hop of steps abstract are the steps abstract of blocks of information comprises the smallest part of information to be processed at one time depending on type of processing required so that is not abstract that doesn't in any stray claim here would just be one that says process electronically sor information in the cloud or using cloud computing that would be brought functional claiming to be too abstract and that's not what's happening it's like this is laying out the process of how you actually go about go about doing another broader point that i think needs to be and this did should be highlighted is of the additional court really discounter overlook the fact that the limitation that we're pointing to is saying this is why this is not abstract this is why it's not conventional is the very limitation it was argued prosecution to distinguish the prior so you have a twelve b six motion you have no evidence that's been presented you have all the inferences that should be in favor of the petit and you have a prosecution history  history i don't think there's any real argument to say that that is not a technical solution or that it was mentioned if it was new enough to to get the claims issued then it doesn't make sense to say well but it was conventional and they recognized that convention large amount of information you need to break it into pieces let's call them blocks and send the different pieces to different nodes on the network different computers that are going to be doing the pieces state and you set a static side and you say we're going to just divide that information processing based on a set number of bits for example as opposed to having that depend upon what the processing task is going to be performed and what's in the record is the that in prosecution and so i think there's sort of a there's a maybe a fine line between when something you can  safely say common sense would tell you it must work that way versus saying well to a person of skill in the art in that field at that time is real is that really true is it really such that this was conventional and what sets this case largely apart from many others i think is that prosecution history where that very issue was what was put before the patent office then things issued after that so i don't think there's a record by which you could conclude that that that something everybody would know to do or that that was true that  regard to her early days as an associate and probably just about everybody in this room the notion that you have people back there and yet the notion that that process seen a document by that the legal field house process documents for centuries has been on a quanta that makes sense for whatever you're doing so if your base stamping a document the naturally you stamp each page right we don't talk about big stamp in a paragraph so this is a red herring it's not it's a token limitation it was it was amended during prosecution to secure allowance and the reason why that is important here is that all the rest of the claim limitations including these very conventional e s i process and steps were in the prior art the limitation of but in the prior art they did they did they actually divide this up this way i mean what would happen is we went from my warehouse to just putting everything everything into the computer and then having to create search engines to figure out how to find what particular document one or how to identify a particular document isn't this dividing peer sort of an improvement upon that methodology and no your honor i respectfully disagree because this type of division in two blocks was was already being done both before the advent of computers to process what we now call  about what the precursor e s i really was i mean it should this have been decided on a motion to dismiss there should have been at least some development of the record to make it clear what the methodology and the precursor e s i was  honor i don't think that there was any need to to perform any fact finding this case and that it was appropriate for the district court to dismiss the case and find the patent ineligible because all the steps that are recited in claim one of the only independent claim  depositions documents evidence and so on and what could be more routine and conventional then big stamping a document page by page yet that is that is the the sl read that next point relies upon and claims as i give a shit how is this different from the distributed architecture in and it's a it's a completely different i'm glad you asked a question on it because unlike the mbox  system that was claimed where they actually had innovative concepts that were disclosed and claimed in the in the nature of of actually detecting information throughout the network and where it w timely to try to capture it without disrupting operation the network and then sent the material that was collected the data to a server for processing elsewhere so amdocs actually is about a patent that discloses the system generic imitation of computers without anything specific being taught that is the very that's a very example of something that is abstract and does not provide that inventive component necessary to disclosure in this patent anywhere about what they specifically do so it is said in that passage that the cloud computing network is what will provision the virtual computers that will do the processing there's actually nothing taht aside from generic components and let's face it cloud computing was not invented by next point they don't claim that it was already in use we know that from prosecution history because they had to amend to add the smallest block limitation to secure allowance and so what we're left with is a completely conventional and two lawyers and judges and and legal staff well known process for for receiving storing and processing e s i  and the only the only thing that next point can point to is that somehow there's something innovative and processing on a block basis but the prior art the spears reference that they meant it to distinguish taught processing on a five hundred twelve byte block as opposed to the smallest block according to whatever you're doing but it's a tautology to say well if you're what you're doing is processing by page then what you want to do is self referential tables as something that was unconventional very different and had advantages to it and what's interesting here is that next point doesn't even tout the need technical advantage to breaking  the side down into the smallest block it's not in their brief that are you below and you didn't hear that today and the reason is that there is no advantage so unlike the cases in which this court has has found that a patent was eligible despite being drawn to software which station here there's no technical innovation instead the specification literally recites a smorgasbord of all the different types of computers networks computer networks upon added late after a request for continued examination it was opinion as in claim twenty eight and the samara noted that those three references taught every element of the claim the so the amendment was blocks and and so the because or was this disclosure at sixty one home seven lines twenty seven to forty one there was a disclosure about about breaking down i according to what the processing was so if you were processing by document the smallest block would be a document if you were processing a page a small spot would be a page and i suggest that tautological but because that was a you examiner was there any suggestion that this was you know revolutionary idea or something that that was unconventional that didn't even occur because of course even though the pattern issued in two thousand t it's interesting that the blue brief in this case devotes a page and a half to the second prong of mayo analysis so that that's where you would ordinarily expect there to be a lot of grist for the mill and a lot of information from the patent she point out all the many places in the specification that supports your contention that despite their claims being directed to an abstract idea there are some technical innovation or something more it's the cases have referred to but here they devote a page and a half to it short shrift and there's there's no nothing sighted from the specification and the reason is that that this invention as taught is as  the supreme court uses language and alice is a wholly generic implementation on a computer there's nothing that is different from the the very common groove the recitation of very conventional steps that are then implemented on a generic computer or generic network or some combination thereof and this case is just the latest in a long line of such cases and there's nothing to distinguish it from from all that have gone before in fact it's remarkably similar and if you look at even the preamble of claim one at issue here the  is that discloses a way to to receive process and store information in that case it was checks that were being scanned and meditative from the checks such as the routing transit number of the account number were being scanned from the check and then store apart from the chaff this case is remarkably similar because one of the steps in claim one is to extract metadata from whatever the site is so if it's a deposition we get to know who the deponent was when it was taken and so on  and so the steps in claim one are are completely conventional and familiar to us because they're simply like all these other cases processing information cases that now the supreme court's turn in an alice in this this court over and over and found to be abstract ideas and so when when this court turns to the second prong of the mayo and alice test you see that that this disclosure is is just like electric power gr it's just like communications in which there are nothing more than generic references to computing components and here in the seven three one patent we see many many  suggestions that that person's ability skill in the art already know about distributed processing and those forms can be used and it even says even though that even though the claim is directed to implementation in a cloud computing network column one it actually says you can even use invention on a single computer you don't even need a network so it's this patent is from a technological standpoint it's completely ignore about how it's implemented that's very different from amdocs that's very different from in fish and in red basket cases in which this court has found that there was some technological invention something that was innovative let me start with the debate stamping hypothetical the council put forth what he didn't include and i thought a couple was the notion that you would take he would take all those pages and you would separate them out individual pages and you would have a team of people and you would constantly be any outrageous una somebody stot you wouldn't do that you would take a whole document and stamp the whole document there's a difference between the what's being processed and how the data is being divided in order to accomplish prises the smallest block of information to be processed at one time depending on the type of processing so we could if even if the smallest block that you stamp is a page that link which would cover giving them the whole stack well i would comprise the so so i i read comprises is basically meant to be is is which i understand is a little different from how you would use that in the iraq mess in the preamble at least and i think i mean that's potentially a claim construction issue of this does comprise meant to be limited to you know could could include something other words we've never argued whatever components you choose and you could choose lots of different components there's a specific process that set forth as to how you use those components and while a lot of the cases where you have found eligible subject matter look at the novelty of the components within that architecture and whether that's a novel and i will architecture there is no reason to distinguish here where even if the architecture is somewhat flexible and isn't the whole how you actually perform those dumps is is novel and it makes sense because otherwise you have software that runs on general purpose computers all the time and just because it runs out of general purpose computer doesn't mean that the steps themselves can't be now i'm out of time i have one quick point i would make but not make your quick point it's just and i think that exactly reads on what's going on here the claims are directed to you is directed to how that software how the system works it's not simply using the system to accomplish some economical thank you thank you for you bot