rather as a whole and instead look at it each individual item and found that each of those items were in by themselves conventional and ultimately by ignoring the claims as a whole found it was not it was direct to an abstract idea and then floundered step two found that there wasn't an inventive concept because again in the court's view everything was conventional it was already known in conventional wasn't that a i serve for handling online payment transaction with credit card information in which the server would be able to handle that in a secure manner that was no yes your honor ok but the difference here is is the architecture as a whole and it's in the claim so it's credit card information processing server and that's part of the concern with the behind the invention is the idea that to secure that credit card information take it out of the hands of merchants who you may or may not want to have that information and instead direct that to a known secure server so that it can be securely processed separate from the selecting the items at the what's called in the patent web d b server and then the communication between the two servers both the the redirecting of the user from the web d b server to the secure server as well as the confirmation information that's routed back automatically to the web server so that on the merchant side of things the computer can both update inventory and receive confirmation that the purchase has gone through or not so may drive a different way if the goal is to try to do in online payment in a secure manner what i don't know what is the invent different concept what is the inventors contribution beyond sending this customer from the server they can't do transaction secur a server and no server that can do the transactions well unknown server again if i could just carry out that little bit it was it was known to have a single server that received both merchant information that let the buyer shop and then also submit that credit card information that's figure one in the patent the what novel what's the advent of concept is the overall architecture but shown in figure two and the way that the different computing devices servers typically so it's the that website listing the items and then the purchase the purchaser selects the items for purchase is redirected to a payment server the payment server excepts the credit card information instead of accepting it through the item the website listing the items and then the credit card payment server processes information with the various banks sends a confirmation information back to you know i just want to make a tran i would disagree but then the communications among those pieces as well so you have the buyer who's using his or her own computer to browse and make selection vitamins but it's also then it's the interplay between the two the website listing items in the payment server how that's processed and also the automatically updating the merchant server or the by the website listing the items with the confirmation and providing it allowing it to update the inventory and confirm the payment has been was based on this idea of if the district court said that the format of the item that's received from the internet some some source across the internet typically that whatever format is associated with that item has to be the same format that's applied to the display device in this claim in claim want to believe it is i'm sorry you claim one we're talking about the television but if you look at the the claim itself t claim says that it's not the unconverted originally received multimedia content item that's applied to the television it's the converted version so the converted version of the claim it says it applies display formatting to the multimedia content item so that it can be appropriate displayed on the display device the district court completely ignored that it missed that in his analysis and said that the formatting that's applied to the television has to be the same formatting that was associated with the multimedia content when it was received initially but the second point with respect to destined for a destination device within the home that that error there really comes out of the idea that the district court was looking at the wrong device in the claims as being the device that was doing the converting in applying the display formatting this claim is directed to figure nine the environment a figure nine specification and the district court applies the display formatting and forwards it to the television so the claim says that the multimedia content item is received from the wireless terminal device in that embodiment the wireless terminal device corresponds to the cellular phone so the converting the these are the cell phone stays in the middle of the bottom and figure nine or any other environment where there is a cell phone in the middle of the communication where the use preconfigured to route it to the m t s c m or the user could make a selection and route it to the m t a c m it's not it's not dictated in specification one way or the other and the claims don't don't require it one way or the other either i guess when i read the from a wireless device to me that strongly suggests that the multimedia content item whatever it is is originated somewhere outside at the source and then it gets funneled through a wireless network and through the cell phone to the unstated conversion model as it's and there doesn't seem to be any contemplation or room for what's wrong with looking at the claim i'm going to them that way i think you if i'm understanding your statement i think i agree with you one hundred percent so in figure nine zero the fact that the item is routed through the phone unchanged while it's  for the display device and that's that's where the district court misread the claim the district court was thinking the phone had to do the conversion and that's why when you if you look at that part of the claim which says you know receiving and then converting it's looking at the phone is doing that and so from that phone's perspective it thinks that the that the multimedia content i would be standing as your you want to claim multimedia content item as used in the claim to be open to the you're right there could be this language in there but ultimately the district or rule that the claim doesn't allow for that kind of alteration or modification of the multimedia content items before the actual expressed that of converting the multimedia content and so what i'm trying to find out from you in the remaining moments you have is what's wrong with that based on the plain language that says multimedia cont correct your honor and that touches on another area that the discord made which i haven't discussed yet but the item gets routed through the phone and to the conversion device in the case of the accused products is the amazon fire t v in firestick devices that's where the conversion is done that's the conversion in the claim that's where the display formatting is applied for the destination device typically a television the error with respect to what's happening in the phone is that the district court resolved a factual error against but but it's not in the claimed in the specification decompresses the file and then applies the display formatting and that's the step that's were cited in the claim that the district court we had thirty six testimony from amazon's witnesses explaining that the i think a mistake in some language in his summary judgment order where he refers to being in the format of the destination device when i think you really meant essentially the converting device so he clearly understood there was a conver and just as you have articulated the issue at summary judgment was going back to how they're mapping this claim they're mapping this plane to this use a mirror cast on a cell phone to a fire t device and they're saying that the fired t v device is what performs the conversion so up to that point the received multimedia content item has to be what was received by the cellphone unconverted has to be destined for the television and none of that is true in mere cast as judge of grady recognized because the way mira casts works is it creates a new video stream of what is whatever is on the a completely separate process that just samples the screen buffer on the cellphone and creates a new video stream of whatever's being displayed in history could be pictures of your kids it could be the home screen in your phone from the head sampling which will be of whatever's on the user's phone and will be edited in a different format from whatever was received on the phone because the formatting is fixed by america has a fixed frame rate and it depends on what ever the resolution of these phone was rather than what the video was that was originally sent from the outside source so judge or good got the concepts completely correct  but that cannot be the conversion can't happen at the fire t v because what the fired t v receives is not what the phone received from an outside source and the when the video as the eyes discounts or knowledge the one forty patton explains that figure one is completely conventional including the hundred twenty eight bit encryption in the credit card processing interactions between the user and e commerce site so their argument was that the magic in the invention in the one party pattern was if the user was from this merchant server to the payment service but there is nothing in the pattern in the described how that switching is done in fact the claim itself does just uses the passive voice to has the user was switched doesn't even explain who does this switch and they're experts at summary judgment you knowledge that there is no mechanism for performing that switching in the claims so i guess commercial transaction using it middle east conventional technology and when you get to the point of what the claim novelty is there's nothing but an empty black box with the result that the district court to delete the abstract idea when i don't recall precisely your honor we argued this at the pleading stage and then it came up again in summary judgment i believe it was processing a transaction with a secure payment server was the idea at least the one that we proposed and i said i don't recall it's a judge or grady articulated that again it's summary judgment but that was the basic idea go back to one point because there's some discussion about how there's a novel architecture here because there's two servers first one that is not true and it's clear from the prosecution history there was this ogram reference that explained it's essentially the same thing so use it would be worth buying making a purchase on a merchant web site they would get to the payment stage and their computer would connect with a different server to complete the pa over and over again the apple can distinguish from by saying no this switching there is is initiated by the user's computer that's not what might and so on different what is switching actually occurred which is the frustrating part where you got to claim construction worker because you can see in the order judge a grady basically says up his hand he says i don't know how to construe this i don't know how you can distinguish program like they did not even close call that there is nothing in his patent it could be a specific solution or an improvement to computer technology it claiming the magic is in there switching but there's no mechanism to describe even how that would occur then add this magic step that is just a result i get the other side to say there was a problem the problem was how do you do and online credit card payments with a a means of an application of that and if there was a means a technical solution for transferring the user from one server to another in a secure manner that was a solution to the problem then they this i have the same lack of clarity on that issue i think the short answer is there is no written description for these claims as the court found had a claim communication channel yes and so that's the first time the claim refers to an output interviews earlier in the climate refers to this wireless device wireless transmitter yes so it stands to reason that  never before mentioned output interface could be something different than the wireless transmitter yes you know ok so just if you could answer judge moore's initial question let's assume hypothetically we're not to sort out claim thirty five and fifty few right now but let's assume for a moment hypothetically we disagree with the district court's construction that the that and claims thirty five and fifty two just assume claim twenty eight it's the wireless device last wireless transmitter that is communicating across the communication channel what does not do to the summary judgment ruling of non infringement doesn't necessarily require us to  because the stipulation of non infringement was predicated on all of the claim constructions the judge didn't war was it merely just some of them like for example there's something about your products sure that if the other constructions were to be affirmed there's just no earthly way that that accused product could infringe these claims as construed  position on any of these terms so they could make up a construction after the fact that nothing to do with item status or update a condition or a change in the merchandise so if i don't status signal  or updated condition of the merchandise is concerned it's a firm or even just a and it seems basis point that the merchandise has to refer to the merchandise a merchandise for which the updated condition detected any of those there can be no infringement when is the follow up on the one point from six more because there is a requirement that all of this purchasing an updated signal transmitting is done by the same device because in claim thirty five bits it where in the system is further configured to identify a purchase request for the merchant it dies based on the recognition of the unique identifier corresponded to  recognized in the purchase request the question about even if we were to agree with you about the meaning of communication channel and whether it could be a different device other than the wireless transmitter that's different transmitting over that communication channel just with respect to claims thirty five and fifty two what difference does that make for any infringement theory why wouldn't you still be stuck with the non infringement outcome in light of an a d when item status if you know and all the rest are getting affirmed in terms of their claim construction so the  the updated condition of the merchandise would be the the status of the merchandise has to whether first of all we start from the end merchandise can't be limited to a single item it's referred to in specification there's the inventory management aspect of the claims of the specification in some conditions and the merchandise i'm sorry your honor the detected change is also a mistake is there i know i'm asking you know this is a hypothetical ok maybe it's not hypothetical but really let's just call it for now a hypothetical you honor i think i would be the infringement theory for your cash but when the claim requires the signal item status if you know to provide information about it detection of the changing conditions of the merchandise you're on and that's that's frankly a hypothetical i haven't considered prior to today and i'd like to let you know your case right you know your patent you know the it's a it's pressing a button  the accused products pressing a button in the process order more detergent or something like that's right your honor ok so i mean i'm just sitting here wondering what could you possibly say to judge o'grady to persist with an infringement there right and the problem having your honor is you're asking me to take some of the constructions that we don't agree with and apply them as a lot as well as some constructions which i'm assuming that i believe that if we can prevail on i think it's less than all of them but i think i'm not i think it's the communication the longer one which says configured to communicate the information for processing of the purchase request that that detected change if they detected changes detecting that the inventory is low then i think we would prevail on that again it would have to be merchandise couldn't be limited to a single item because we're not monitoring in the inventory convey any information that the customer has run out of detergent or has fallen below a certain threshold amount of detergent in the household it just wants more requesting that i think that detecting a change i'm not i'm not disagreeing that wouldn't be a challenge to prevail i mean again well you can also record below so i don't know the case as well as someone would but having studied the record on appeal here i'm not sure that we have the evidence necessary to make that call that that we couldn't prevail below because i think that you could again you know you're  detected changed to mean it's got to be something automatic and i'm not sure that that's that's supported by the record john thank you very much for the question it's not a question so much as it is a statement the only people that would benefit from  circumstances then i think that you want to seriously be aware of the fact that i think the lower court would be within its right to consider fees and possibly sanctions against you if the case is not disposed of promptly upon the realisation that there are three other