them some a long string of them dealing with one on one in the hours abstract idea if the issue come up as to whether or not it's just a court is required to entertain expert declarations or other entertain factual questions but those briefings were made on the new cases that kept me kept kept on coming down from the federal circuit and from the supreme court so every time there was a significant decision of the district george i requested the parties to submit supplemental believed to discuss how the specific decision affected the situation in the case however there was no them any time a discussion of different  the abstract idea that the decision was based on was for the first time formulated in the judge's decision so we have no notice of what that abstract idea would be and had norbert unity was it was required for the judge to do that to say this is my tentative idea and now you get to comment and respond to make tentative idea to what you think about it is that what you're saying was missing here i think the judge  presented no evidence on that issue the only evidence and on that subject is in are presented by the appellant and the second step would be to decide whether or not the clean a directed to fundamental economic practice it can be a mathematical formula of a single engine so why isn't the practice of minimizing interest by accelerating loan payments an maybe maybe i was in the state of sir let me restate the purpose of the methods in the system of the patent is to allow the consumer the ability to reduce the interest but the consumer nonsense our invention is not directed to their claimed abstract video reducing the balance to reduce the in checking account which has now would have never been done in there's not evidence for the country in the right order to allow the consumer to continue to either accelerate the payments at some good morning ma'am please the court i first wanted to start by addressing a couple of the points that were raised in the argument thus far first with respect to whether or not evidence is required  that is certainly not the case this court has ruled on several in several of these cases at the motion to dismiss stage finding that the plaintiffs in the p issue were drawn to abstract ideas and that the patents were in dallas and affirming the motion to dismiss the order on a motion to dismiss entered by the district court that included the earlier cases of ultra martial and content extraction and it also includes two of the cases most recently handed down by this court within the last few months including  circumstances maybe not so here but i don't i do proposing that everything can be done on one on one in a motion to dismiss i am i am not proposing that i recognize that the supreme court has called the one hundred one issue a threshold issue and that the court has found that it is capable at least in certain circumstances of being resolved at the motion to dismiss stage i don't believe that this case presents a situation where evidence is necessary in order to a value with the questions but i i am not arguing now for rule that it could always be addressed at the motion to dismiss stage i would also just quickly like to call the court's attention to fo decisions issued by this court since the briefing in this case closed that all address the question of patentability under section one hundred one of those cases are over ip technologies know one of the unresolved areas is it which city age when gates has a point at which the abstraction becomes concrete certainly that was recognized by the supreme court is real and putting looked at the individual claims broadest claims and determined whether or not those claims were it whether any of the other claims that issue offered something more concrete that stems around the other issue that was raised earlier which is doesn't have to be of conventional fundamental idea of the ancient we age or does any idea suffice and it was agreed that was done here it was someone had an idea too to join a traditional checking account with a line of credit mortgage accounts in order to accomplish this potentially accomplish the savings there was nothing inventive there was nothing that was new that was created there was nothing concrete about the abstract idea of connecting things to what w was done and what's reflected in both the system claim claim one independent claim one and thirteen eleven and the method claiming playing three are simply individual steps that demonstrate the combination of those two traditional products again nothing nothing has been created a lot is made very clean is that not a whole you don't want to call it the idea and then sprung that idea you determine whether or not anything in the plane limitations is there taken individually or together as a whole add that inventive concept so for example in the example you used that you've come up with an idea to get better gas mileage in a car ok that is an idea and then the question would be are the steps in the individual plane when you take actions that you apply do they actually provide that inventive concept if your patent was drawn to if the claims of your patent red have a car increased the gas mileage and and improve the car by entering a system that increases the gas mileage and thereby improve the car then those plane limitations i would postulate would not advance the idea if you had something elements who claim one they simply recite a line of credit and mortgage a town and a checking account that are combined they recite the the trappings of a traditional checking account including access through an a t m including the ability to do online transactions including the provision of writing chaps all of the things that are associated as internet form that the data is lost if you use the forward or backward now the cation buttons and the idea in it's new and it's different and it hasn't been done before the idea is to develop a system to keep that data even when you use the navigation buttons to move forward or backward now that might be a new idea that might be something that hasn't been done before and that we all might find it to be has not been offered before the fact of the matter is it's simply an idea it's simply an idea to combine two things that doesn't mean i have presented a case of it differently and i think that the the district court did time the district court fashion the idea none of the cases that we've been talking about this morning from this court had been handed down and as was argued earlier the court was looking for a conventional fundamental principle up with the idea that the court believed it had to arrive that we didn't have the benefit of the decisions like contract content extraction or the intellectual excuse me internet p to show that the idea could be a more specific idea so i think that this analysis is right and that the idea as was demonstrated is simply to joint accounts however even under the district court's analysis with this broader idea of reducing interest and if you reduce interest you reduce the money amount of money owed that the trappings that plane limitations as describe simply take a traditional line of credit account and join to a traditional checking account and have not added or changed anything about that  example the very complex exotic forty seven investment scheme that you know you're able to get a high yield of no computer can you get  out any such type of of patent and i would think of one of the issues that that would be presented in such a cage would be is there a problem is there something that  impeded your ability to implement the idea that you overcome or solved and going back to that the example of the gas mileage simply having an idea if the idea that maybe there was a specific human implemented method of organizing activities i can only state what i know based on evidence the evidence in the record shows clearly that it cannot be and no one to my knowledge or longstanding function of the form of the banking financial industry withdrawals transfers of money is there anything that we haven't engaged him in some way shape or form for as long as we can remember twofold answer first i do not believe down the correcting cream we need to be making because the combination of well known elements can be patentable and well established the second the answer to a question is that yes for has been done in the past including the prior art that has been argued here from australia and the united kingdom those are very different to be counted in the transactions according to clean three something physical is there or where do i know that there is some kind of with things as if the k t computer controlling this invention well  young judge the question according to the supreme court is not whether or not there is a computer in fact the supreme supreme court appears to say that the presence of the country or is no