tradable object for a given cover quantity there is a computing step by the computing device i'm sorry what is the identifying stuff that's the second step right after receiving what does it do the receive identifying  indicator that moves relative to that long or short position after this right so you can see that the profit or loss axis is displayed and then you've got an indicator that moves up and down while it certainly has leverage it's a figure to position they wouldn't know whether they would make or lose money they'd have to calculate that all or it would be dispelled how is that different organ be displayed in a separate separate spots but the interface data to a display or a chart or a table is pat knowledgeable it's kind of a crazy concept to me i don't see what technical problem this patent could possibly solve in light of its admission that figures one  prior art and that figure at least four figure nine simply add a column with profit loss to that that's just adding information that maybe the trader would find useful but i don't see what technological problem in the technology is being makes that crystal clear and i think it's a little different your honor and prior in the prior are you know would be displayed in a different location requiring the user to go back and forth to find that that p and l calculation or they could have to calculate manually if this were the first time calculates it for the trader across the granger price level so they can actually see for the first time how market changes are impacting their p and l directly and in this in this court's opinion in co wireless for instance where there was a new display which leveraged prior applications and provided a summary of information on the opening display of this mobile app you for the first time you could summarize information that was in others and other graphical user interfaces within that device so that it was summarizing information present elsewhere but was doing it in a new and useful way and that was found to be improving the functioning of the computer just like in this case buy it for the first time and hanson efficiency of a trader instead of them having to go back and forth between this location here it actually provides a new tool that they can use in making trading decisions which was inputs and compare them mentally you're right we actually have expert testimony about limitations on humans brains to calculate certain number of  to ascertain how my profit or loss is going to be intact if i if i buy a bike here are going to the market moves and that was sufficient and you know that the size of the improvement should not be the question of whether or not something right and then i'd like to point the court also today to engine which t t submitted a twenty eight day letter after briefing had been closed and there the court held that a more user friendly gooey which was more intuitive and efficient addressed a technological problem in computers with a specific technological solution and data engine claims they're involved navigation of a three d spreadsheet by clicking in a notebook tab icon as opposed to typing multiple can't command in prior art good weeks and that was  display would always qualify as such so long as the user will not change pleasing or interesting or valuable to them certainly alice contemplates that there is a big swath of potentially eligible subject matter that is computer implemented and that we're not supposed to just cast aside all improvements because of you know what it's perceived to be how does the size of the employer does adding a strip of computer is all this information and all the invention of the computer knows how to do this without any change in our computers  putting it into as i understand it putting into the software a range of hypothetical prices and then putting in your profit and loss calculation is not hard to do you can do it on paper doing here and we've held that that was insufficient compassionate well i think there's a difference in those cases is if you actually look at the clean language a lot of those are highly functionally claims and they're not providing a particular tool for presentation electric power group for instance which i'd be heavily relies on in that case if you look at the claims they were directed to you know managing power get great problems using a display chart or visual they tell you how to construct a visual to display the information in a better way that you're more useful for a user of that software let me throw in a other question on on page sixty four of the r's which we've known about reexamined at this point so our argument is slightly different because given where we're sitting today when these were filed in twenty fifteen twenty sixteen you know we knew about reexamined but we didn't ever nell with an even you burden if there is a fact question but want to once a question of law and only thus far my experience has occasionally had a fact question so in front of the p t o for the most part like in this case it seems to me you also point your honour's to is you know there really hasn't been and needful opportunity to command and c p m procedures up until i guess recently but when we were involved in those cases there was no meaningful of the time and i think there were like just two out column in the answer the answer is yes the five six claims are merely about using the computer as a tool to compute and display profit and loss information this is something that was done by traders before manual line and mentally in their improve the functioning of a computer no your honor the computer is doing exactly what the computer i want but i tried my gaming it no no your honor i don't believe so i think that the computer is doing cell french self referential data table that was a new way of working izing the information so that the database could be accessed in a more efficient manner it required less mature memory that's an example of a computer based improvement factors i'm small someplace previously user would have to drill through a lot of difference a lot of different screens in order to find a function or the data that they were looking for and the improvement there  it provided that ability without having to drill through those screens and find that information and so it was a new way of navigating information which is very similar to the other case that triggered technologies phrased which is data engine now data engine is that we believe very instructive here because they do engine it was a complete victory for the patent owner and i think this court did a good job both to finding a line in that case between hence their computer users but it was something that was done mangled and so the claim said it was manning that process and when you have a manual process those did not survive whereas the other the tab the majority of the tab patent claims they did survive another thing th trade in technology is mentioned is that they presented that forces from their experts one thing i just want to point out is that the court found and it's true that those experts didn't actually analyze the five five six patent train technologies recycled those so i will briefly mention the constitutionality issue we are spoiling our time of the government to address that but i don't we we agree with that for i think as far as to the extent that the court believes that trading technologies properly raise this issue of the didn't you say the same thing and i think your honor we're here to address the constant thank you we're here to address the constitutional issues just to pick up where the previous discussion left off constitution and so we think that that reasoning fully applies here with respect to to the main argument that they're making i'm just you know more generally you know we also think that property has a right to win you know if we think that you know there is no taking here because a patent would only be canceled you know after this court has affirmed the board's determination that the that these claims are unpatentable and you know just as in district court litigation the fact that a district court would find a claim invalid doesn't mean that their isp and actual t t i'm saying is that they never had like my my questions about this remain unanswered for me which are you do have a different standard of o versus the just records and we have a different standard of review for that questions from the p t o vs the district court so one of the difficulties with the property right i think you'll follow me as i walk through this is if a district court decides it and there are fact questions in the district court is the decision maker he decides as fact questions under the clearing convincing evidence and jury right which is much more favorable to the patentee then when that comes up on appeal to us we were view it under the clear air standard when the patent office decides these questions they decided under the same that question and nonetheless it has been deemed by the supreme court a material difference so but how do we not have a taking under those circumstances where both the initial standard being applied to the property right is lower and was should different after that so this really does change catholics involved respect i'm not sure we're bound by it anymore because at the time catholics was decided we played the same standard of review to both p t o and district court decisions and don't we don't do that any longer supreme court told us that was a no no we now give more deference to p t o decisions doesn't that change the in scheme a little i don't think it does or again i think you know we're talking about whether a article three review which is at the same level as it would be from the district court we have lesser scrutiny in the article three review process of the removal of the property right that's not a taking less scrutiny less review ability by article three tribunal i don't know what i think came along let me make this crystallize for you because it's all coming together for me what what what if all of a sudden congress said you no longer have a right to appeal i d r is to the federal circuit full stop would that be a taking that's where i'm going if we lobby for that but no no i mean i mark my question my question would be i think you're posing counsel more than you what if we amend the federal rules of evidence or the federal rules of civil procedure catered again our primary submission is if you step back and look at their takings claim what they're saying is that they have a property right in a patent that never should have been issued because from the time it was agency not the a taking if a limiting review was about when you reduce the scrutiny of making deals well you are again i think if you if we go back to pilots at that time there was no way the agency could take it at all and so whatever level of scrutiny answer the question in my view i am answering the question so i apologize if you think it was really just yes or no with when a question starts with yes or no and you don't answer yes or no i don't know how in your view you could be answering the question yes or no does the board ha the authority to hold the statute unconstitutional i think you're asking me about the remedy the board could provide does anybody in the audience misunderstand my question yes or no does the board have the authority to render the statute unconstitutional i think that the board could opine on whether the statute is unconstitutional and the remedy that the board could provide to a patent holder th argues that the statute is unconstitutional is that the board could decline to insitute the perceived so so let me be clear your answer is no the board does not actually have the authority to hold the statute unconstitutional i apologize i don't know what you mean by that if you mean  thought unlike a court they can hold the statute unconstitutional can  tever they want so that's not the answer you know the answer i'm looking for does an article one tribe you know have a right to hold the statute unconstitutional and i don't really answer that question would get if somebody actually declared the statute unconstitutional that litigants need to raise issues before agencies you know the supreme court recognized in elgin and underbids and the constitutional issues have to go through the agency procedure they can't just be brought in district court and that there is value traveling agencies address constitutional issue you have three minutes for survival let's want to make a few dates and first so are you going to answer the question that i raised with your opposing counsel and so i was going to ask you about a change in the rules of procedure the changes in the rules the courts in other cases it's been a substantive change that would affect for taking i mean then i wanted to answer just one other question about you know pat lax and not just to  and this isn't just something that was done in the head you know you this is something where you've got indicators that are moving relative to value axis and you know the board's overgeneralization of the claims as being merely directed to providing a made and rather our clients set forth a very specific structure and makeup and functionality of those claims and that's why they're very different than the cases cited by me and they're much more i can say cases just want to add for the record that i very much appreciate when i get to see young partners or more junior attorneys have an opportunity to argue and i think you