i want to emphasize three points this morning first the district court proceeded at such a high level of generality that it fundamentally this understood what the patterns are directed to it is the significance of each of the ordered combinations and it ignored how really narrow because deciding what incentive in some thirty or thirty five years ago has to rest at least in part on understanding of facts historical facts rather than just as a pure question of law and well we're not suggesting that the second step you know the the second the second key which doesn't rest hardwire at the station but it's transmitted time that dynamically with the programming that gives the controller of the of the network some other kind of mechanism and all you're doing is putting it on digital information what it but putting it in digital trail and digital transmission has particular to and it is in the network context because you could with a single signal sent a single a single transmission across the network that will be decrypted differently it will be received differently by multiple stations and decrypted differently so when you know for example if it says to look up look in your read only memory at a particular location for the relevant code that may have one effect at a subscriber station that has certain access privileges and it may have a different effect at a subscriber station that can decrypt more or less all that can be done with a single signal without having to send one technological grew there for this particular type of a system as compared to other types of systems if it's race was it was a yes i think that's what we're talking about right right i mean well i mean this is addressed i think in  of the same question with respect to the two fifty two baton which which dealt with upgrading software as a upgrading operating systems by first comparing the hardware version at their at each receiver station again this is the same idea a single signal sent across the entire network can have the desired effect by being pursued by multiple stations and having the desired effect at the ones where it should and not at the ones where it shouldn't without having to may have to support what the morning i think the argument exposed exactly the problem the magic in the claims apparently is in the signal itself or in the information sent or in the instructions that are sent so no matter which path you look so doing it whilst doing it simultaneously the district work recognises not magic and just simply saying i'm doing it digitally well all computer functions are digitally so saying do without a computer is doing it digitally and obviously doing it on a computer yes and in fact i want to get to the claim construction i think when i look at the claims they do rely on these claim constructions on the two five two and the three or four other two paths the only two patterns where they say the claim construction five their claim constructions are very very broad and let's look at what a control signal this they have a definition control saying this at the bottom of thirty nine thirty five that p m c could make and accepted these claim constructions even after the oral argument and look at the definition of control sigma it means a signal that carries information or data  that affects controls or labels prost i don't think you could get broader than that i don't see how sending a signal that affects processing could be any broader amused said that the judge considered the weaver declaration that because he never said that he didn't consider it and what is your basis for saying you consider that i have much more than that yes that's a great question first of all when he accepted that we were declaration be accepted by name he said please file declaration and that's in his order that's at joint appendix for nine to four and he said file your supplemental brief together with the affidavit of dr alfred c weaver once said inventive concept their entire argument was it's not a trap and preemption they did not argue step two only after the oral argument did they say let's make me cites d i one thirty four at page seventeen unfortunately the entire supplemental brief is not in the joint appendix but there's nothing the joint appendix to show you that the supplemental brief cites to weaver virtually every other which incorporated all the weaver arguments the point is on a motion to dismiss or judging on the pleadings you're free to make any argument you want if it's reasonable common sense can be inferred by the district court judge whether it's in the declaration doesn't matter what's wrong with the the great grief as they assume that we were raised controverted facts that there's a genuine issue of material fact that's not true we're not opposing what we most prevalent way that's not a conventional means at all and in fact this quote just came out of that opinion last week in the am earth case conventional means that it's in the prior art it was known and we know all this they are in the patent office do you mean i mean are they going to feel here are some are on appeal some have three or four have been denied a rehearing three are still pending we hear in the patent office we have delayed all the briefing in those appeals and in the outcome here and that's what's been happening in those cases but your position here as i understand it is whether things are conventional or not ok here's an abstract idea here in the district if you look at some of these cases you'll notice this court very carefully here is to the specification of the claims in deciding whether or not there is a technological context or technological here there is no citation to the specification showing any advance over the r and they cannot show anything in the specification because the claims are that specific the claims cover all technological context if it's a network they believe that's the field that's what was the significance of their complaint the complaint because all these inventions platform agnostic they don't want them to be tied to a technological field and if you look at the complaint which we assume this troop they basically said amazon and paragraph nine of the complaint which is in your joint appendix by three all the procedural matters in this case are in bottom three of the jo way they can seriously on a rule twelve motion act as if these claims are narrow and specific they're not that they're alleged to be broad and not technologically specific that's the whole point of these claims a functional result with nothing specific on how to do it this court has several cases explaining this in fact we did twenty a j letters it was seven twenty eight j letters in this case i've never seen seven twenty  exist someday and they had nothing in the claims or the specification giving anything technological to teach anybody how to do anything and that's why there are numerous examples analogies that would apply to all these claims to show that these problems preexisting computers they're not specific to computers they cover all economic practices not theirs we say they cover economic practices their response is oh no they cover much more than that this is a political case and they're talking about the graph of the claims in the requirement that they cover economic practices and more which to me is it is nothing short of really very and said look at all to marshall ultramarathons a great case talking about enticing someone to listen to an advertisement to get additional material he says these claims are brought out because under the claim construction and he quotes the claim construction this programming is much more than advertisements it's beyond economic it's more than economic its claims are so broad anybody who uses the internet infringes some of these claims period they essentially conceded that before the district court and they were unable to explain to the district court cup anyone can use the internet press that shopping cart you can fridge and that's why this is a very serious cases far amazon is concerned these of this is the worst degree of inventive step that they are something more and the question is now is that something more doesn't count those that something or not count because it was simply routine on the bench and all in the art and i think the fact that the court has been careful to say routine and conventional routine or conventional explains why just saying that you existed somewhere in the prior art is not a correct definition of what of what it means to be conventional so for example you know going back to the to the weaver declaration with this this is dated the specification as well the puter with a floppy disk they do get remotely over an entire network with a single signal that would then distinguish between hardware versions that was not conventional and so even if the idea of reprogramming is an abstract idea this type of remote reprogramming you know done in a specific way that involves comparing a particular piece of data that that indicates the hardware version and also indicates the saw the operating system version that's what's invented and i do want to tell you about the three or four patents that's the two fifty t hand at one column one fifty seven one fifty seven there's some more discussion of the point that was made about why it's useful to have subscriber station specific decryption involved in them and in the process i mean ultimately you know my friends say that you know these are platform agnostic and that therefore they must be super super super broad now if if we were making a field of use limitation argument my friend would be up here saying that doesn't count the one to one else what the reason that these claims are not directed to an abstract idea and that even if they were they would survive step two is that they rest on a narrow application without any specific in the three or four pattern a specific construct  requires the transmission to be structured in a very particular way now if we and they were surprised to feel that use limitation is not what matters for what a lot what matters is that this is not broadly preemptive because of how the claims are structured that