to solve the specific computer problem and that is precisely what we have here in fact even now is in between the systems and improvements here in core are very stark in core as here the problem was software license was subject to happen and that's it thirteen forty four now some systems had tried to improve upon the prior art such as with a unique identification code and that's true here as well was in the band or whether even it was a partially out of band system in all of those systems the identification information was coming back in through the access channel which made it particularly susceptible to happening and in negating environment where everybody is is really operating in an anonymous fashion and if you have the credentials you look like the real person whether you may be after or not there the contrast of the other systems where you had either in band or even partially out of band always coming back through the access channel here you have two separate channels you have the ancestry and or suppose we were to disagree with you on that and to say that the idea of having two separate channels as an abstract idea that it doesn't involve the complete separation doesn't involve an inventive concept is there anything about the diversion and the interception that is an inventive concept i think here you are right or it is true that the specific solution because here we don't purport to preempt the notion of complete out of band communication or even completely out of band authentic age because you could have a system in which the accessor initiate their communication with the security computer and that there's not complete preemption here but are you arguing that the version of the interception is itself and a bit of concept i think that the interception device really underscores the inventive which identification is verified in the traditional method it goes straight down the access channel and all you're able to do is establish that the credentials are credentials that match up with authorized credentials but you're not able to establish that the person presenting those credentials is in fact the authorized user what this does is and the interception device i think sort of is the exclamation point is it cuts that off it overrides that traditional the authorized access and that's because you have a predetermined address or telephone number that you reach out to establish that authentic asian channel and the fact that the person answers and systems which some of which did use biometric data but use of biometric data in a system in which all the information is coming back through the access channel doesn't really significantly improve security because if you have a happened there and they capture the biometric data your fingerprint all that is digitized data it's the same as any other digitized at it and it could be replicated by the hacker in the later attempt to access i unless the happier simultaneously is happening two different channels at the same time this way you know that the person who is inputting the biometric data in the authentic cation channel is in fact the authorized user particularly that i have to sit here because these claims have already survived multiple one of the three challengers there were to be ours each with multiple grounds that were not instituted because they  obvious to survive multiple one of the three challenge is to allow somebody to waltz in and say well but it's a lot of like if you try to go into a preschool and try to somehow map it onto but they did say that they all they are able to do is to to verify that aunt sally has permission to big up the child they're not able to verify that and sally is and sally it's the latter problem technology it could be an saudi's twin aunt sally has a has authorization but aunt bertha who is in sally's twin does not and you can't distinguish them from the credentials from the credentials they each have the same driver's license you can't distinguish and that's the true problem of use a user authentication authenticating that the person is who they claim to be all of the other systems are designed to make sure that the credentials are authorized credentials don't authentic aid that the user access or is the access or and that's what these claims do precisely because of the do something with the prior art was not able to do its that is proven that it's claimed and again it's not all out of the end there are lots of other bands systems that don't do it the way that are claimed here in fact  back in through the authentication channel you may be in imposture but if you were there when the mail was delivered and you picked up the pin you were able to use the pin so you don't know whether the person is who they claim to be only that they have the right you have to accept these allegations that it is an improvement it is not a well understood common routine for arrangement that it's one that is not that and it improves on the prior art those have to be accepted as true at this point in the process so at most we would be entitled to remain and to to establish that those factors alleged in the specification are true i think that you can actually please the court the decision below should be affirmed because the district court correctly held that the focus of the claims here is out of band authentication and that idea is not specific to computer technology and we can see that from this court cases such as secure mail prism both of which were addressed in the briefs as well as a case that came out after our briefing was complete as garri come bronnie number twenty eight sixteen two four one five which also dealt with a form of out of band authentication so there's been three cases where specific ways of performing up an occasion in the computer network were held to be abstract and those are the cases that were relying on the cases that opposing counsel paper mail they could be telephones it could be all manners of different communication channels and that's what our preschool analogy illustrates and i'll note that in prism and secured mail this court relied on analogies to determine that the ideas at issue were not computer specific and that's what we've done here i do want to address straight forces criticism of our analogies they mention this idea of authentic even who i don't see anything in the claims there require a verification of the identity of a person apart from verifying that they have the correct information so there's nothing in the claims that reflects th i'd also like to address and cora so that case again found that the claims were not abstract because they were directed to a computer specific solution to a computer specific had multiple areas the bios wrong and the bios the squared crop and that later part is where this license verification structure was stored and the reason that that provided an improvement to computer security was that the pattern explained by those the squared problem is more difficult to access for programmers and when you do access it improperly there's a high risk  computer will be disabled so they're relying on this very specific computer structure a memory within the computer that has different traits from other memories that make tampering with that memory less likely to be successful for hacker here we're not seeing any structure that is computer specific that's being relied on to provide the alleged benefits the supposed resistance to hacking comes from the use of two separate communication channels communication channels as i said are not computer specific and using three separate communication channels improve security outside of computers as well and we saw that in secured mail we saw that  friday and let me just explain a little bit more since that was in the brief because it had to come out yet why there were two trails at issue there so i do want to know that that's up rule thirty six apartments so we don't know what the reasoning of this court was but we do there and what the claim to the claim said that you have us central authority and extra in all i'm sorry central entity and external entity and a user the user is trying to access the external entity so they first started transaction with that entity and then in order to authenticate that transaction they separately communicate with the central entity to get a code so there is communication between the external entity that's one communication path and the user and communications between the central entity and the user and those two separate communication passed are both needed to perform the force is relying on here and in that case the person receives a piece of mail you know through the normal postal service and then wants to validate or authenticate that mail and so they initiate a computer connection and over the computer connection you authenticate that the mail is authentic and that's a bi directional out of band communication channel because it's separate those claims abstract is that they did not provide the technology specific solution to a technology specific problem so the way that your friend the says that in this case technolog details sufficiently have been provided and the details opposing counsel provides that are allegedly technology specific is this use of two separate channels and that's why i'm pointing to secure mail to show that the use of two separate channels to perform authentication is not technology specific secure mail negates the idea they're proposing that the use of two separate channels to perform often acutely in his technology specific so what w the computer code to overcome this gap it's know if you want to it's not a question of inadequate disclosure of the use of two separate channels it's that the use of two separate channels itself is not technology specific because the use of communication channels is not limited to computer and that's why we provide this analogy to show that the use of multiple channels for authentication is performed outside of the computer context so they would need a completely different focus of their claims they would need something like exploiting the structural traits of bottles as an end core up as distinguished from other computer memory and that is a computer specific solution because it arises specifically from the structure of a computer component here there is nothing there pointing to that arises specifically from the structure of a computer component that they're all lying aka that for the solution is computer hacking i too general of a characterization to be used for what they mean by hacking here is simply intercepting data that's in transit right intercepting information received community there's no dispute that that's the target sorry interception to to such right to avoid interception of information being communicated that problem is not computer specific because information is routinely intercepted communication channels computers specific but it's applying the same concept that exists outside of computers in the computer context though the word hacking is a computer specific word but i'm saying the substance of what they were using that word to refer to here interception in a communication channel is not computer savvy and that's why you know they refer to a core up because in korea used the word acting but it was using that word to refer to said we're looking at computer hacks no your honor the the word computer there were hacking in this context simply means intercepting communications in a communication channel which is not computer specific so that all that had to say intercepting computer communications is that the difference that you know that's that's just a verbal formulation you are i'm between one zero one and one who three one of the three is about what's called one o one is about what's computer specific and the reason i say that the so called active here is not computer specific is because it's no different than intercepting communications in a non computer communication channel unlike the hacking in cora which was specifically about accessing computer memory and the use of different types of computer memory so hacking for let me also make this point hacking is the problem right in order to have a not abstract solution you need both the problem to be computer specific and the solution so i think for the reasons i've already explained that they don't have a technology specific problem here but i you know that's not the only issue the other issue is do they have a computer specific solution and the answer to that is also no because their alleged solution is to use two separate communication channels in case the communications in one ship and one channel are intercepted and that solution is not specific to computers because it works with paper mail as we saw again secure mail it works with telephones as we see in our free school analogy and so even if they do have a computer specific problem of hacking their way of preventing that fracking is not a computer specific solution and i do want to also address this intersection issue because there's a that's you you can't mean that you say or if you if we all agree that this is a computer problem don't don't bother looking at computer issues and solutions if they have a computer specific solution is do you have a computer specific solution to a computer specific problem and they don't here and that's why this solution is implemented by computer implementing an information based escrow or intermediated settlement in a computer environment under alice didn't prevent the claims from being an extract and that's what we have here a communication channel solution that simply implemented in a computer environment i don't deny that it could be useful just as implementing in a mediated settlement in a computer environment could be useful but it doesn't make it computer specific and that's a crucial dividing line in the case  before one at a time i just want to address this interception issue the agreed construction of interception device is something that prevents the host computer from receiving there is a purely functional engineer construction and such purely functional engineering elements cannot provide an inventive concept as a matter of law i also want to point out that the interception device does not even have to be separate from the host computer according to strikeforce itself for said that the interception device may be part of the host computer and even if that wasn't the case because it's purely functional and generic it cannot provide an event concept as a matter of law thank you high a level of generality exception swallows the rule and and my opponent suggested that these claims are not about user identification but that fails to recognise the critical feature of these clinics and i to just point to several points where that is clear in this specification kalam two lines twenty and twenty two it says that the proper technical problem that's addressed is that the hacker is in a self authentic ating environment other words the happier oh sure that's true he was wrong about that but the fact is that in the non computer context we have the same problem with this well your honor as as i think was came down after briefing made clear that it's not sufficient just to be able to trace to some real world analogy it has to be and this it won and here are the preschool analogies not city because in order to actually practice these claims in every instance when anybody even if they're on their permitted lest comes to pick up the child you would have to call that person a cell phone which they would have to have in hand to be able to verify that they are in fact the person who's on the list is a dedicated user that never happens so all they're doing is they're sort of like waving their hands something looks like  line thing that happens pretty frequently in the real world in the era before computers i mean take a big example of somebody picking up care sram a bank with a note from the deposit or in the bank decides to call it a positive is that part of the problem and i think part of the foundation for the decision that this was an abstract well your honor what what's what's critical is that these claims because they reach system in a cup or grid system everybody have their user id and password verifying that they are happy that a good user in the in that sort of first level way is not that significant what is significant is verified and this is what it says other than occasion of the person seeking access is the most significant and that is what these claims do they improve the other systems by providing a completely physically separate authentication process using all of these elements the interception device the security computer the subscriber database the authentic asian channel that's completely physically separat biometric data that system provides and level it may be true your honor that no system can give one hundred percent certainty that the user is the user of this system improves  it's true in a core as well it wasn't absolutely you know in impenetrable but here is well what you've done is improved dramatically the security and the bill and identify that users use or at the very least that