respect to the boards section one hundred two into the patient rejection like to focus on two critical clean limitations that are missing from the sole prior art reference the first of those is electronic output or accessing the treatment information  a patient and the second is monitoring compliance based upon access of the treatment information and with respect to the first that limitation of electronic output or access is present in all of the claims at issue i mean it's not disclosed by th the board focused on the home access passage of the sole reference and that's at a five fifty eight the bottom kong twenty seven that passage is not disclose electronic access it's focused on the initial assessment portion of the sole reference and the initial assessment is what happens when the patient first approaches the the sole system to report a complaint or some type of a medical problem this happens before the patient is seen by the doctor and before treatment twenty nine through thirty four judge well it depends from independent one hundred twenty eight requires all of access of the people access of the treatment information by the patient and monitoring the compliance based upon the access so for that reason because the both of those limitations are missing from claim twenty eight claims twenty eight is not interested aided in the claims that depend from claim twenty eight are also not anticipated because they include all of the limitations of independent claims twenty decision lacks general evidence for the same reasons as point twenty eight so so those those claims were preserved your honor that the second issue for anticipation is as i mentioned earlier monitoring compliance based upon access of  of the treatment information and this limitation is also missing from the from the sole reference the patent office only points to a couple of isolated references to compliance but those are not compliance based upon access of treatment and those are asking the patient whether she intends to comply for forty even leave the doctor's office or upon some time in the future when the patient returns to the doctor's office asking whether she did comply but neither of those is monitoring compliance shifts the focus it moves away from the home axis portion and it moves towards the exit interview portion now that's problematic for several reasons one of which is that the board expressly declined to rely on the exit interview portion including figures three and twelve one so the board in its rehearing decision said it did it declined to rely on the exit interview portion of soul in affirming the examiners rejection under section one or two the anticipation rejection and the reason that simple your honor if that had the board the board recognized declining to rely on that passage of the pirate reference if that meant that passage was not relied upon by the examiner so if the board had relied on that passage it would have think i think it's fair to say that the board concluded that these claims are not abstract because the word was focused on section want to one and there is a want to one issue in this case but it's not an alice abstract issue with a different one but the board's i'm twenty eight i think twenty eight is clearly an eligible under office if that's the case are all the dependent claims you're talking about also eligible under out as i don't see anything in twenty through thirty four thirty six or thirty seven that add anything beyond just more steps to be done on a computer so the board rejected claim twenty eight hundred one but i understand the boards it did it make a proper what it was a rejection of twenty dollars or thirty or thirty six or thirty seven so that's probably up for us although it seems to me that if we saw this back at exactly what we're going to disagree on that point your honor there are actually there's another pending application before the board twenty eight is directed to one of the four categories under section one hundred one that is process machine manufactured composition of matter and then you turn to the second step and you determine whether any of the judicial exceptions apply here all of the analysis was focused on that first on how we look at the what was determination here we can apply alice to claim twenty one our best and say is that abstract idea which is the first step and does it add anything more to essentially take it out of that so the core can certainly apply abstract doesn't fit very well but this is the way to the supreme court and we looked at it taking conventional steps and saying do it on a computer it's generally not but i mean twenty eight entering treatment a permission determining access information  the rest of my time i have to say it was pro se he had counsel most of the time and he had counsel during part of the prosecution that's right at the time it's undisputed here that at the time of the the alleged waiver he was pro se and any seven let me just open up to make sure that i have the right citation here j five fifty eight at the bottom of the claim twenty seven it describes what the patient can access from home using c p m system using the internet  the system for triage screening or health education sessions and the board looked at that disclosure and they concluded that that meant that and then goes on to say that if a patient has a problem at identified it sends a notification to the doctor and associations the patient but if it doesn't show the notification then is there any way of knowing or monitoring that particular action well what the board was that the access the it's immediately after the the interaction of the doctor the patient goes to a carol at the doctor's office uses the patient computer system as active asked a series of questions about compliance those  it's monitored in the sense that the patient has to live into the system and the monitoring here is just to be clear the monitoring is actually reading claim twenty eight it seems to be directed towards the doctor because it's not monitoring compliance of the patient and that's what sort of discloses at the bottom here where sent a message to the doctor so if there is a system identifies a problem with the patient notify the doctor so that could be a problem with compliance is that with the new element excuse me it could be it could be a new element and that new element could be related to the fact that if there's not compliance and that's what the board said and or in their opinion i think that's entirely reasonable the other thing i'd like to point out is that when the a comprehensive patient management system in the interim from home via the internet and they also say they can use a c p m cd rom or d v d because i say they can come back to provide organization for example if they don't have access reveals conditions need a proper tension that's the monitoring part the patient is instructed to seek care at the end of the c t m session and then addition the physician is notified and so that's the monitoring portion but just to be clear that monitoring portion is not monitoring it's not part of claim twenty six and i believe i heard mr trask argue that the limitations with electronic access and i don't actually see electronic assets as a limitation in these claims we argue is a waiver issue but the board rule requires you to do one of two things which is you to reopen prosecution or argue the claim under hearing and so it may actually be that the claim is abandonment i'm not actually positive on this but it may be that the claim is just abandoned here not the fact finders and this court here is not finders is the agency and these are these are grounds that were not relied upon you know firm in the agency's rejection now with respect to the home access portion which the board did rely on that fortune is focused on the initial assessment the tria screening and health education components that are referenced in column twenty seven are the initial assessment of a patient's condition before she sees the doctor and before she is before the doctor ever enters any treatment at the mission well there's an exit interview mentioned there's an exit interview that happens at the patient carol that's right that does not happen from home there's no connection between the two in the board expressly for when there's a reference to coming on line through the internet at home and there do a right to do tree our screening and health education which is the initial assessment the only thing that happens from home from so reference is an initial assessment of conditions prior to the doctor prior to the patient being evaluated by the patients may access so that's following the conclusion is meant so that things out that's what the references closes and what it's saying is however the patient may log on from home with need to to provide symptom updates based on new patient information this is if the patient has at some point in the past undergone a a doctor's visit for one condition and then from home experiences some new condition  headache she can log on to the system report the fact that she has a headache and then the system will tell her if she needs to go see the doctor that's that is what the whole nexus portion is and it's nothing more than that so the pan off attempt to graft onto this with limited home access portion the notion that you can do an exit interview the notion that you can do a revisit interview from home is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and isn't it is a new factual basis that should not be a lot of on medical  the fact that the claims the fact that the claims do not require electronic access is incorrect claim twenty six requires a computer that outputs to a patient over a network the treatment information the notion that over a network can read on a printed piece of paper makes no sense the board didn't find that and it's an unsubstantiated argument here that here the appeals court claim twenty eight in addition to requiring monitoring compliance also requires determining the access of the treatment information by the patient that's not possible with a printed piece of paper that requires electronic access so that the computer system can determine when the patient logged on in access or treatment information and the system can then determine whether the patient is complying with the treatment  finally run or just like that to get back to the the section one hundred one issue the this claim is directed to an article of manufacture there can be no question here that it falls within one of the four categories under section one hundred one that issue was preserve absolutely not the issue is not a special purpose computer right this is just any random so there it's programmed to do the step they want to one issue is a two part process i'm not talking about the alice two step test i'm talking about a two part patient was given a printed piece of paper and sent home to comply what happened after that the doctor was completely in the dark as to whether the patient comply or not this is not a fundamental or longstanding abstract idea this is a new concept the fact that you can monitor in real time the patient compliance based upon access to the treatment information so i disagree that the alice issue that these crimes are obstruct under alice i also i also argue that that alice is not an issue in this case with what that issue is whether the claims are directed to one of the four categories under one hundred one and there's no question that they are thank you very thank you very much