center who's been a great clerk for the last year and a half i'm sad to see him go but happy to see him start or i guess restart his career in patent litigation and also happy that he gets to move back to his home state of massachusetts so i moved to the mission  computerizing blueprints that would satisfy the first would be an abstract idea in the first step of a home your honor depends on what the definition of abstract idea is and this is been i believe a problem in the jurisprudence that there is no concrete way of measuring what an abstract idea is up till now with litigants of dot well there are plenty of cases saying that if you take something that was known to be able to be done without a computer was done earlier with and pencil and computerized that that's an abstract idea or your honor in the first place this patent isn't simply taking something that was done manually computerizing it is the background section of all the patents say the prior art itself was a method of computerized drawing this takes a problem that existed in the prior art how to confirm that that was all automating human stubs i mean just because you're a second generation automation doesn't get out of step one of alice it may get out of step two because you're solving a computer problem of but it doesn't get out of step one does it just because you're improving on something and that itself is probably be problem that existed in the computer that's up to your honor again with respect i think part of the issue up till now is because there is no definition of what an abstract that is the definition at least is if you take can and do them on a computer that's abstract your honor i know that that's not necessarily putting the most technical definition of abstract but it seems that that's what the supreme court  said and that's what we thought and we have to call that what your honor but if we look at what supreme court precedent talks about if we go back to the morse case in the telephone cases since then the common theme through all of these cases your respect of what the technology is is that a patent or not co opt of basic tool of research suppose you were the first one to computerize blueprints would that be an abstract idea i believe it depends on what else the claim says or although i would understand it if it were but try to answer my question in this case if we didn't have any computerized blueprints beforehand and you were the first one to computerized programs would that the a bstract idea of the first step of out if that were the hypothetical claim simply computerizing blueprints then that would be an abstract idea because all you're doing now is computerizing surely computerizing something but again going back to ho if so why is it the fact that you're the second third fourth fifth or sixth person to do that make it not an abstract idea because this claim is not simply computerizing blueprints your honor it's taking engineering drawings that by themselves cannot be used for manufacturing and turning them into three dimensional manufacturing blueprints also one of the things you say and in your club very fast certainly one could not imagine it mentally converting nonstandard  claimed really an engine trained engineer couldn't do that if they sat down and worked at it using these different criteria from the claims you know your honor there are simply too many factors here  to allow someone with pen and paper to do this conversion in the way the claims talk about worship what your support for that statement because you don't cite anything but your honor there isn't imagine it your honor you said one could not imagine a mentally converting it well your honor if their only support is they can imagine it well when i want to know what your supporters who is your what your standard for a person of skill your honor it would be somebody who has experience in cad cam design so it's the person that we're talking about is himself skilled in this  autodesk position as well that person is skilled in the computer parts there are people who work with computer programs that person if that is the person of skill in the are isn't able to take pen to paper and convert engineering drawings and write into three dimensional manufacturing drawings but that's not what you say you can you say you can imagine mentally converting well your honor going back to the paradigm what with a person of done if the person of skill in the art is a skilled person in cad cam this is someone who works with computer software programs the purpose of which is to generate computer designs then yes we would stand by our other human beings with other skills that's true your honor but again we talk about want to whine when zero to one of three we're talking about the person of ordinary skill in the art we're not talking about whether this is an abstract idea i don't think we are i think you're wrong about that they have a standard is what human practice is what human beings do which is what the supreme court talks about under one hundred one that it isn't just a personal skill on the art but then your honor it's hard to imagine who the person would be it would be absolutely anybody like there or would it be the person of skill your would be the average person overall with a person off the street be someone who would be involved in this inquiry i don't darned if i know but i'll tell you this i'm willing to bet yet that i could go down to the metal workers union and find somebody to do it but again your honor if this is an invalid challenge which it is then the burden was on autodesk to come forward with something that shows that this was something that could have been done by humans well let's assume for the moment we were ject your position on that and we find that this is an abstract idea the first step of house is there something here that's an inventive step at the second step of alf that's a yes or a what if we if we look at the arrangement of the steps for the software it's obtaining a visual representation and claim seven of the six six seven and even suffice what those visual representations are and using unique features such as property values geometric information and standards information i e the information that allows you to actually build a part instead of just theoretical design of a product all of those things being used to convert the visual representation into a three dimensional blueprint that then to be taken by somebody to build an actual system that is the  meat on the bones if you feel that would convert well how is that different than what was being done before in the creation of computerized blueprints because the computerized blueprints that the prior art talks about were simply blueprints that sketched out the design of a system like a ventilation system but they weren't specific enough with the information about parts out there that actually existed that someone could actually take that and build the sr i don't ca tape that actually exists out there because when you have someone that's doing an engineering drawing what you'll have is a very general depiction of a bend in the ventilation system for example without concern for whether there's actually a park out there that can be used to make that connection and i've seen cases in the four years i've been here i've seen cases where there were auto cad cases where they were referring to standardized parts and other and other forms of construction that's why after that quest that there may be a well certainly for the pricing of the reference was to windows that's why as well certainly since the pats issued because that's the basis for infringement contention there can ca programs out there that generate standard specific designs so they incorporate the standards information for the various constituent parts of a system that's on those or that use products but before this patent know how it's generating sept because using a computer it is now possible to take a nonstandard drawing a drawing that doesn't allow you to build the system import information that doesn't improve a computer that improves the software but it improves the operation of the computer wh which is going to generate the blueprint in other words in d d r for example your honor there wasn't an improvement on the computer percentage there was a good there was an improvement on the interface which was all software firmware based so it's not like there was a better mousetrap in terms of better hardware in that circumstance this court said look well i mean d v r to the extent that you know we've followed it is an improvement on the way at least things are portrayed on the computer but yours i guess i mean i guess that's what you're trying to get out you see this improves things because it adds details it doesn't really change anything though it is said details you know you know your honor it's a fundamental change in what's displayed there is now a three dimensional drawing with fundamentally it wasn't  dimensional drawings before not that operated on a computer like this your honor not that took a visual representation that can't be used to make the system and was used then to make a system that's one display with i don't understand what you're saying i thought it was  the words computerized preparation of blueprints in the prior art but so what is what's the improvement we have to talk about what blue prints are referring to your honor the visual representations of the claims those are engineering blueprints that do not have the standards information that would allow one to manufacture a system they're basically a two dimensional can be a two dimensional very very simple design the display on the computer the thing that hansen is the computer operation is that visual representation is taken and with all this important information that set forth in twenty five lines of claim language then you convert that into a three dimensional drawing that can be used to manufacture a system because it has the information about the parts you know these parts exist you know materials they're made out of you know other dimensions are you know they fit in the space into which they're intended to be deployed is it the fact that it's three d or the fact that it has the parts it's both your honor it's the fact that it's a three dimensional drawing to me that people were fairly easily or could manufacture h fax systems from to the blue press by looking at them and saying here's what we need for all these things and selling it but that's the thing that's missing your honor but three d was a new run up but it's not just that it's three d that's correct isn't it three d was not no no it was not your honor but the thing that's different about this is not just that it's a three d drawing it's that it isn't a drawing the can be used to make an entire system because the output shows that the parts exist what they are what materials are made out of all of the things you need to know beyond what is in your generic blueprint and it still feels to me an awful lot like automating a bunch of different human steps and putting them together in maybe a new way but it's not doing anything technological it just automating your steps i don't sound how do you like a scolding human metalworking form an could look at that to be drawing know what's in the boxes over in the shop and and be able to give the instructions on what to do but your honor there's absolutely no evidence of that in the record and i understand there's no evidence on either part but the denson the record that people can take to the drawings and transform them into three d a tax systems is the courthouse you're still standing at because there are three d a track systems here i mean people up to then doing building construction for years and they start with drawings and then they figure out from the drawings what the kind of pipes they need to use but this view of it all together in a very convenient way that's true but it seems like that's what alice says is not patentable when you automate human steps and turn it into a software program but then the question becomes your honor what what does it take to improve the operation of a computer to pass muster under alice and what we contend is in this circumstance that the tool that replaces all of traditionally is the sheet metal worker who ok i've got a bill there's ventilation system out of tickler pieces standard parts and a sheet metal worker as it says here this is an admitted fact the shee worker analyzed the design drawing that's what came from the engineer and added notes and specifications to create the manufacturing blueprint that's what these patents create as the manufacturing blueprint for example by choosing standard fittings placed on the information present in the design drawing the analysis inherently took into account geometrical impressions which has sizes or locations of fittings properly values such as materials and her flow present in the design drawing into also took into account standards information by the sheet metal workers knowledge of what standard fittings were look so this was done back in the days of paper and pencil we  moved into the computer world but this is basically computerized this that piece of cake yes you know i i get that and i think that's where the case all is that i agree with you what troubles me about that is i don't see a lie maybe there just as a single lie about stopping a callous rejection of software how do we i mean have we essentially made all software and eligible or is there some light at which the software will fall this mapping process if it told you how they implement that objective on a computer you know the way that he was not simply conventional which i'm eric computer functions i think that would be converting nonstandard stand it was part of the manual process of creating blueprints but what is there to show that that's not an inventive step here figuring out how to do it on a computer well i think if you take the supreme court cases in this court traces and you look at all the steps you know first there's just data gathering which doesn't come from the palace it is your point that this the nothing more than a concept of doing it rather hand says take a metal worker and use a computer to imitate it yes essentially bringing this case down to its elements yes unfair the first time this morning i heard sort of a new concept maybe the invention here is that the blueprint is something better that we've never had before a gallery look up and other one of the admitted undisputed facts number twenty five on record a six zero one the generating of the asserted claims  computerized version of making a manufacturing blueprint that the sheet metal worker created manually and the traditional approach at that that's i think that is the fact but it's for purposes of this case that is an admitted fact so the basic process was being done without computers it is computerized but there's nothing about the computer process that's anything other than generic computer functions  claims this claims every one of the mapping geometrical information and properties onto a standard figures using a computer i mean that was one of the more than issues it does so however you do it on a computer it's claimed it doesn't tell you how to do it it doesn't come up with any new innovative way of doing it and in fact it claims every way of doing it are using generic functions so i think that's simply not oh  exclusively in the domain of the internet and computers you know what do you do when you're on somebodies web page and you want to go to some product that's on another web page but you want to keep the look and feel of the original web page  as we've been discussing this problem of going from the more high level drawing to the drawing which standardized course that the workers can actually build that exact problem existed before computers and then even in r the court said look not every computer centric patent is this fits under section one o one it has to be something that's not simply generic and they said this was different it was you know not this was not the typical way it was done on the internet you didn't jump through and do a web page and again here as i think we've established the process is the same the geometrical information is the same the firming the disk record here means anything close to software patents are no longer going to be valid it's just that there are there is a group of software patents that are not going to be valid and the more recent cases under one for any further questions now thank you mr  this summer field you have two minutes and create something from which a system can be built and we would contend is if it takes two three four five people to do something that the invention claims that is not a traditional human endeavor but that is do we believe anyway alice and other cases like it that prohibited patenting summerfield you said to me in your opening argument that there was no evidence in the record that  what what metalworkers it what sheet metal workers did whether it's an individual or a team that information there were responses to requests for admissions and five and six that is a six hundred six zero one directly contradicts what you said to me before are you still standing by your prior statement that there is no evidence about what sheet metal workers do here on or what i understood the court's question to be and i apologize if i misunderstood it was whether the person of ordinary skill in the art could do all the steps and claim one what i just heard from aa desk is no you had an architect doing part of them and a sheet metal worker doing another that's different than saying are those ordinary human endeavors the architect for his a sheet metal worker has yes the problem here is if we're talking about normal human endeavor and it starts taking ten twelve twenty however many people it is to perform what's claimed that no longer is simply the computerization of a normal human endeavor europe your honor it just it what places that your honor there isn't a case that says it but at some point to go to a judge this is question how are we going to prevent where patents from being invalidated because presumably we can figure out a way of getting enough people involved into the mix to show that everything done by any software package could have been done by humans in the past that