regard to combining the internet and the telephone networks that specific technological solution as a consequence not only satisfies the notion that it is not an abstract idea under either micro or and fish but it paris invented a system that connects a voice server a web server a database server and a file server and that system cross connects multiple networks having different protocols this is that if you use your unification theory it's uni we concluded that your unification theory was still abstract then it doesn't matter if the court was wrong about whether climate represent right but that's correct your honor if you conclude that if you conclu that the the claims are directed only to unification which we contend they are not but if you conclude they are only direct if unification and that is the abstract idea then  representative claim issue falls away only as to claim as to the first part of step one but the issue then becomes what's new then a concept that appears in various ones of the claims that actually draws that out and we would say that as interacts with the other pieces of the technological claims yes your eyes are playing yes so if we were to take a look in connection with page seven and eight of the blue brief and we look at claim one of the one twenty pat we can see that the voice server actually processes the voice and natural voice commands in a very specific manner so as to then generate these computer generated messages unders very specific command that tied together with the file server and the web server along with those commands then of facilitates the communications that we're talking about across the various networks so those tiny hands with regard to the specific natural voice command processing as well as the connections to the file server on the web server result in that unification under the control of that choice commands now that that voice recognition technology you're still talking about generic we shall want to practice well that's what the defendants have alleged but we tried to make clear to the court below that this was not the that's in fact the reason why we submitted the declaration by the inventor alex kurgan off the fact of the matter is that while there was a list of parts in this specification the patent application also incorporated by reference a provisional application that had along with it or five hundred pages of code and that code was important as mr carter kurgan off explained in paragraph eighteen of his declaration that these were specially adapted board so as to provide this very connection that we were looking for and that didn't happen before this invention and as a consequence these elements were in fact not generic whatsoever and there's nothing in the record to show that they were generic other than the assertion by the defendants that they were the source code and the source code which underlies the operations and ties all these things together for instance in an terrorist board that's referred to in mr kurgan off declaration had to be modified so as to operate in an unconventional manner and we were never provided with the opportunity below to show the unconventionality of any of the individual components which actual step in every connection all of the connections and we've in fact cited in our footnote on page twelve of the blue brief some excerpts from that source code some of which were in fact cited before th instance but no twelve there is we make reference to a code routine for converting a voice mail file from to left an e format to a p c web format these operations it was not him it was not with the papers that were filed in the non provisional application but at the very beginning of the the non provisional patent application the all of the materials from the provisional patent application or incorporated by reference into this application so they constitute part of the overall disclosure of this application so i'd like to go back to thank you talk a little bit about step i or position as it relates to step one with regard to the invention unification under the control of these natural voice commands actually addresses as i said before a problem that arose in connection with the arrival of the internet the reality is that as the patent application i'm sorry i specification clearly described in the background section to be able to be fully connected into both the telephone network and the internet it was necessary to have access to multiple different electronic devices operating different protocols with this invention then did provided a network oriented device which sat at the cross connection between the internet and the telephone network which allowed the user then under using natural voice commands to configure that network device to provide full access ability across all of those protocols with a single access point that's a technological solution this voice server arrangement actually solved a problem that arose when the internet came to be this is different than the cases that defendants have cited where many of those cases really rely on the notion that there was a problem a business problem for instance that was identified and then put onto the internet or put on to computers which caused those problems to be solved in that particular environment this is a problem that arose in the environment itself so we see it as it more like the i'm a grocer to ation or in any fish situation where we're not just using the computer to do something to solve some other problem that existed like a business problem but other well i wouldn't say they're willing to give up on the six hundred patent but i would say that we recognize that the six hundred patents tax the problem in a different way and with a broader claim skill so the six hundred patent claim one refers to a very specific set of features in the voice server including that the text to speech the speech recognition and the conferencing functions thereby the finding and that voice server something that's not conventional there is no record to show that there were any such void conventional voice servers having that capability and then that time and for the purposes of solving the problem really arises in the connection of the cluster that includes that where server with the web server and then the portion of the recitation with regard to the web server where it talks about the ability of the subscriber to access the network which is the item being claimed the network by connecting to the web server via the internet so it's that combination of the web server the voice server and the functionality the specific special functionality of a voice server which we details from the final specification is the intention that the claims are not limited to what's in the provisional no your honor we did not by incorporating by reference it was never our intention to have a code considered to be omitted from or separate from the overall disclosure the source code by the incorporation by reference would be considered part of the overall disclosure and therefore to the extent that it was that it played any role in the interpretation of the claims if it would then if if the judge if judge robinson had reviewed it and thought that it somehow limited the claims it would have created a limitation  saleratus pieces of equipment and so forth but the underlying source code that actually made them work actually made them work in an unconventional manner so that those elements did not just operate as if they were pulled off the shelf and assembled together but in fact they were cause to do things that they had otherwise not been allowed to do before rather the difference between fame prosecution history can be used to help understand what you're says you have to look at what the specification is there is nowhere in the specification that they say that they operated those elements in a conventional fashion they said that they this was composed of those things but it also said that the inventor had created some software pieces to to better integrate these things and for instance column five of the patent beginning at wine forty nine and  yes there is a recitation of various elements however those are tied together by three specific algorithms and software and to understand what that software and what those algorithms were looking at the source code that was and for the pelleas so we heard for specific things found appellant and i'd like to address those for in order the first thing we heard was the very first statement you made was that this technology relates to combining the internet and telephone well that's the mere definition of an abstract idea we know that the combination of the internet with other technologies specifically technology before the internet and just putting that into a computer or putting that into the internet is abstract that's the idea well if we look at the claims the claims pertain to three types of servers web server a voice server the database server using those three servers and having information come in on the telephone and go out on the internet and that's exactly as he described component a marshall off the shelf and the web server that runs on solaris and unix using commercial off the shelf technology so everything they cite to in their claims are all commercial off the shelf and what he's trying to do is he's trying to take the specification specifically this four hundred or five hundred pages of source code from the provisional application and somehow import that into the climbs we know from and censure that that's not allowed we look to the claims not to what is not good to what is claimed not as to what is described and that's exactly what should rob me understand what's claimed in light of what's traffic right i mean you can't you can't of course the two you cannot divorce the two but you have to look and see if the scope of the climb something that is abstract or additional significantly more than the abstract idea and that's when she was looking at that that she considered all of the arguments that impel is making today she considered the unified issue she considered to consider the representation issue whether or not the one find that she looked at was representative of the eighty five other climbs and she found that they were just like in content extraction really looked at two hundred forty two clients and found that one find was representative of those two hundred forty two primes so the mere fact that they are looking to try to salvage a claim that robinson found was not within the specificity that shows the abstractness of what is shown here that it isn't there a problem that so many of the other claims do have different aspects to we should we at least make it and remember for to consider those other claims each one of those other aspects that you're mentioning judge o'malley those were all considered by judge robinson in her lower court opinion there's a specific footnote where she goes through those issues in her  that's already been considered and when you look at those finds all eighty six of those claims with the representative claim that we looked at specifically they are truly representative from the abstract idea of merely taking a telephone and sending telephone voice message over the internet as an e mail that is that is the reason that judge roberts and came to the conclusion that it was a strike because there is no basis to go beyond that abstract idea and i think that you could hear from counsel for appellant you could hear as software card that integrated these three known elements these three known web servers well none of that is flying that specific how he integrated what he did integrated were nothing even close to the step one analysis that we would look at for example and in fish and in fish we had a very new data structure that was created and that data structure is what brought it outside of what was abstract and it made it not attract because it was a new data structure growth we had this very specific ruling technology where it was allowed the live seeking for animated characters well this was something that had not ever been put down in a claim in that specific manner filtering and all of the back the background by that inside of the claim itself not in the specification and you say you don't have any of that from paris they cannot point to any of that and you can even hear that in their argument and see it in their briefing now one other thing that's important here is that they also point to the fact of this this fact if they take these three servers and they combine the servers and basically what what counsel for appellant says that he says will least three service they somehow we combine him and a new way but he doesn't point to any way in which they do that effectively what he's doing is he's using what i call and what is described in the intellectual ventures case as the software brain he's saying will basically we take three servers we combine them into what we define as a software brain and that software brain allows these research to work together well that in an intellectual ventures the court made very clear that requiring the use of a software brain tasked with tailoring information and providing it to the user provides no additional limitation claim imitation no additional limitation beyond applying an abstract idea it is restricted to the use of the internet on the generic computer and that indeed is how the appellant described the technology when he came up to drive to your honor's he said it is combining that interfet the internet with the telephone and that's exactly what we have here we have the combination of the abstract test it also does not satisfy the requirements of step two there's no inventive concept in fact if we look at for example cyber phone well cyber phone is a case that dealt with taking technology and having data sent over a telephone well that's very similar to what we have here that was found to be not eligible if we look at content extraction content extraction is taking hard data on paper and converting that into data that can be accessed over computer well here what paris is doing is they're taking a phone call and they're converting that into data that can be accessed over computer it's the conversion of data well that incontinence traction was found to be not eligible yes yes judge will now they say that they are doing those three things together but if you take three abstract ideas there has to be something more to make them more than and that strike they so if you take the telephone transmission cyber phone you take the data convers content instruction you take the sending over a network of zero ip if you just listen to those those are abstract ideas and even if you combine those three abstract ideas that that does not make them not abstract you know  combining concepts and whether those concepts as claimed are eligible and so not whether or not there are anticipated under one of two or obvious under one of the three but whether or not they're eligible as stated as an idea and so the problem with the claims that are in the paris case is that they're not claimed in a way as good robinson found they're not claimed with the enough meaningful limitations to make them non religious or eligible to bring them outside of  the reason that judge robinson found that they were not eligible because they did not have that something more that addition and even the combination of these three things that we that we spoke about judge o'malley it's not a combination that would be  mean for example in all traversal the court said any transformation from the use of computers is merely that what computers do and it does not change the analysis under section one i want well that's exactly what's happening here we merely have telephone data that is converted into data and then it is sent over a network those three things do not make it all the the bottom line but what paris is trying to do here is they make this analogy  their opening brief which is pretty interesting they say well if you don't allow us to have a klein if our clients are not patent eligible then look at the telephone look at the printing press look at the cotton gin look at the robot you know none of those would have we would not have had patents for any of those if you don't allow us to have that the problem is it all goes back again to the climb in each one of these situations alexander graham bell i don't know about gutenberg but if you know i really and george about the robot all of those individuals when they claim their patents they claim them in a way that were eligible and that were patentable here however the problem is they did not claim their in their alleged inventions in a way that was padded all because they were to brawl and that that type of to be a brat the preemption of every type as judge a mallee referring to what about those three combinations would take those three combinations it's so massive it's so large accomplices so much phone technology over the internet that preempts the entire field and that's exactly what alice tells us that we cannot do is if it's so brawl that it preempts everything then we cannot allow that that's that was described in and d v r it was  recently in the opinion that the new coauthored or that he joined in i mean all of these recent cases have recognized that you preempt everything then it cannot be patent eligible and that's what they're doing here in fact if we look at the specification the specification at column seven line thirteen specifically describes a system that acts as an efficient secretary and so one of the ways that they even describe their own invention in an abstract way in the specification which is taking the functionality of having a voice message come in taking that voice message converting it into data and then sending that voice message out over the internet that is what they describe acts of an efficient secretary well just as counsel for appellant said when he walked up here it's the come the technology is the combination of internet and telephone that is the absolute definition of an abstract idea under alice step one hund human just a few points first i just want to be clear on what we're using the source code for in the specification specification under mc roe is a crowd appropriate to look at to be able to understand what the claims are directed to what we're saying is the claims are directed to a technological solution looking at the specification the source code helps us with that we rely more specifically on the source code to rebut the notion that these are generic elements step two defendants have just made the bald assertion that these all things were were known that the voice server operated conventionally judge robinson except that that operated under that assumption and never actually provided any analysis with regard to an ordered combination just accepted the notion that they operated in a conventional manner the source code along with the specification shows clearly that that's not the case i just like to mention the automated secretary issue make row actually plays more in our favor and defendants letter on this in response to ours is suggestive of the fact that it's entirely appropriate to automate a process that is tedious that is time consuming in the manual if you do it in a technological manner and we in fact that done that might show you part of the class that you think you have the most structure so the parts of the claims that give the most structure let me refer to claim server is determined to operate in particular with regard to the natural voice spoken commands and how those are processed and what the result of that processing is and the result of that processing together with the file server and the web server operate together so as to provide the communications that go out more specifically the particularized message and notification they get sent to the user so it's when we combine the pieces together it's the web server with the specially operating voice server in particular which provide the connections that allow a connection to the telephone network and to the internet as well as providing the configurability that defines where the messages and notifications go over which network that then where and because of that the american guess and this gets into a whole separate question i get the one twelve question but then where do you describe how that specialized system works and the specifications of the specialized system is described in connection with the drawing figures which lay out the system in figures one and two and i believe  figures five and four or five and six which specifically lay out in more detail the arrangement of the voice servers and then underlying those operations of the voice servers and the e mail on the web servers and the connections is the source code that was incorporated by reference and the specification