morning your honor smith please the court this case presents the important and fundamental question of whether inventions directed to theater compression technology can be patentable or not and data compression is important area of technological innovation and inherently involves nothing magical algorithms and improvements to data compression howard out through new and innovative and better algorithms for compress and i haven't done any that i've just put one on it but if one means something if there's a a code block for example it says one with means or claims reach out and and capture what it means yes yes it does digital representation of the image and it says then three separate places in column two line fifty six column three line thirty nine and color three nine forty eight it talks about the image digital representation of the image and that's how it's not how it's defined and the claims and sells off of reflect that idea because it talks about the fact that the composite image is the in this context your honor what it's talking about is being able to represent that image in a more compressed manner such that exact image can be recreated or reproduced at another location  storage and the bin with required for the transmission of the image so then it's clear that including is talking about compressing the image to represent an image in a manner that allows it to be stored invention generates this image curve which is a compressed representation so instead of doing what was done in the prior are where you would code each pixel to get individually like j tag codes each pixel individually instead of doing information the entire image can be represented more efficiently by this image code which is based on the features in the image rather than the used on simply compressing the that once you have this composite facial image code it can be used to reproduce the exact image that you started with on another device write another the cation and get back the exact same image and to do that in a way that directed to the improvement of the data in the data smaller as opposed to improving improving that data not necessarily improving how the memory works are changing how the memory works i just storing less data to represent different information well i think both cases are similar in that they both involve application level they have a structure that store information more efficient change the hardware did involve a change to the firmware in the operating system it was erected at database application that had a better way of or about to enter data structure data model for storing data in the exact same memory of a generic computer  was a generic computers just an application level they have a structure and the training it was changing to see how the memory itself storing information what it was changing how the application was storing the data in the memory it wasn't changing the hardware any kind of low that is going to store the information that allows this image to be represented in recreated in a different way using a new type of data structure using this composite functional image code and responding to what i don't see in the clay around and look to clean one again because i don't want to miss them is i don't see the compression that you're talking about and i don't see the storage i don't see how this solves the need in the industry particular algorithm and even counsel for nintendo doesn't argue that the identikit combined element comes together in the nahar so there is a definitely a specific technological difference feature with a fish will feature element code so in other words where's the prior art would just code the whole image you didn't know where the r is where the nose where is the mouth this invention says instead of doing it that way each different of the face gets an element code that describes that particular part of the face and by putting all that together it requires less storage space then to code each pixel individually as was not in the prior art and so that's where the compression comes about because it's using eight facial feature element code to represent each facial feature that's where the compression comes from what you want to say is a little bottle tom you're half way through it ok yes your honor thank you i will save my remaining time for a said the following the innovation claimed by the three zero three pattern is merely a more efficient manner of encoding composite facial image data by using a generic computer that's what the three zero three s but before we get into the actual alice tests let's step back a moment actually think about eyebrows the problem with that of course from the standpoint of patentability is that's conventional that's what was already happening out there but sea exact same thing that identikit was doing since the one nine hundred fifty s situation which you would do with plastic with mylar transparencies is you would have images of the nose the mouth eyes that would be assigned a value like nose number one mouth number two number three and you would simply transfer that information  picking up the phone or or in a face to face to the person police station b here's what the code is you have your libraries independently and you can put the same mileage together so in addition to the identikit importantly here when you look at the pattern itself this is an issue concession that the plaintiffs counsel wants to avoid look at kake omma look at the prior art that's not only described in the patent it actually incorporated into the patent and what are we talking about there we're talking because as we know what this needs to be is one convention but attacking a more directly the one oh excuse me the alice test under what this pattern is directed to so what is it directed to again the pat answers that question is interesting judge reiner one of the points that i had in my argument was the precise when you say you made which is what does a summary of mentions say about this the summary of invention says it provides a novel math an apparatus for encoding images that's one reason we know that it's that's what it's that that is an abstract idea that doesn't mean a pattern and eligible again and if there is something in addition to that a transformative step of some sort that actually changes the nature and substance of the patent and it actually is providing some type  this patent does nothing with with ones and zeroes or anything like that all it does is do a future by feature encoding method that's what it concerns it could it's basically using numbers to represent pictures approach what they're doing is a feature by feature approach again if you step back and understand what they're trying to accomplish here how do we more efficiently transfer information we need to point b sounds a lot like short rich same type of situation how they did  was to add an algorithm what they did was take the conventional encoding and decoding process that was in place and identical same process and they just migrated that to a computer and how is it computer us used in the generic every day fashion to do the types of things that computers do it's not changing the computer in any way it's not increasing or affecting the functionality or the capabilities of the computer you're simply taking frankly the identical in your migrating into a computer you're signing numbers to things the facial features and then your transfer that information interesting enough keep in mind that as oil and fish is exactly that remember what the court said in fish was only that it's an unconventional solution an unconventional technological solution to a technological problem that greatly enhanced and improve the computer's functionality it actually was doing with distributed architecture there so what you're talking about is actually changing the capabilities the computer itself this doesn't do anything to the memory this doesn't do anything to storage this doesn't you think the transmission the computer still operating the same fashion not introducing something in additional what the computer already half of what you're doing here simply is taking again an age old concept of assigning a number to a picture you're moving it onto a computer in this court has again and is convention it's already out there in order to allow what would they have to do they had to add and and as we know from folk and any number of other cases that adding a mathematical algorithm doesn't render in at eligible patent patentable and think about that algorithm itself look at what it says it's a very broad based non descriptive algorithm it simply requires a simple and single haitian operation doesn't tell you how that's going to work that's not found in the claims you have to go the specifications to understand how that algorithm an abstract idea in itself works what you have here at base your honor is the following you have an abstract idea of encoding and decoding they've added to sneer computer and they've added another abstract idea of an algorithm and that doesn't overcome that al test there's nothing that's inventive there certainly not a transformative step here this is in the heartland of alice it's very similar as i said to short rich you've got an algorithm that allows you to transfer so i think it's important when you think about this and you think about how both the patents written in how my colleague wants to address it what he's really do mean is dressing up words using different jargon code  image code when you break that down what you find is that's the same types of things were already out there in the prior art what you're talking about is just in a fancy name for a number that represents a facial feature that was already being done out there that's that is the identikit there's literally no difference between the identity that and this other than adding a generic computer and an algorithm and importantly in khaki you don't even have any difference other than the fact that it doesn't have an algorithm akiyama has a computer you're utilizing computer it's done within a computer environment but keep in mind again as we step back we look at what the test use here in my view when you put those  handful of cases together in which you derive the idea that it really does have to be a technological solution to a technological problem that greatly advanced again we don't have a technological problem to begin with and we certainly don't have a technological solution that is unconventional that's the critical word in the beginning of that test it has to be unconventional there's nothing in it and satellites across michigan have to be outside of the abstract idea but the abstract idea i think it's disqualified as a result that what you see i'm just struggling a little bit with your honor in the fact i'm running through all the cases and all the scenarios and thinking through is there ever been a situation where the abstract idea is actually the  transformative aspect of it i can't think of one and it's hard for me to imagine where if you've got an abstract a truly abstract idea that that is actually be is that transformative so there's the thing that gives that technological advantage because you know by the nature of abstract that's telling you that it's conventional you're saying some things that are vegetal or abstract and unfairness by that statement but if you've got something that is fundamental it's out there been in place for some number of years and things like that that's what alice talks about in other cases so if you've got something like this in coding the coding that's been in fleece for a century or so that is an abstract idea it is not something that gets to the invent of the test under alice you really is trying to reach in preclude patents that aren't providing an unconventional technological solution to a technological problem that again is transformative in when you your honour's i would just sponsor the last line of questioning by just calling the court's attention to the fact that in dear the supreme court appellate claims that use the mathematical formula and stated that an application of a law of nature clearly describes a problem with the existing technological approaches to image coding it provides a specific technological improvement to that and that is a not to pass must under alice to provide an improvement to an existing technological  it's not multiply co factors by the image code to generate a single composite image code it simply concatenated the different elements together and therefore this patent even if you consider identical that it provides an improvement over  that and judge or you're right really identical should be considered if at all under section one of two and one hundred three a specific technological problem was described the fact that they can go back and find some manual analog from you know fifty years ago you that may raise questions under one of two one of the three but it doesn't mean that this invention was not solving a real problem that existed with the real technological process thank you