me a place the court michael heim for appellant zuki i will start by road map in my argument today in the district court committed to fundamental errors in its summary judgment ruling on the one hundred one eligibility issue with respect to  step one the district court characterization ignored the improvements in the claimed invention and in particular the requirement that allowed each user it is it fair to say that that plane is one of the three and ten and eleven elements that are stored in the data the database management system and secondly to allow the users to customer i customize the contents of their profile the district court's characterization also did not account for its own findings regarding the purpose of the invention at appendix a you lived in twelve and then with respect to step two the district court improperly found that the claims cover purely conventional computer functions without citing any evidence and it disregarded the prosecution history evidence that identified the advancement embodied in the claims and that inventive concept was not abstract and it constituted something more than the abstract idea articulated by the district court the district court also failed to properly consider the declaration of z keys expert which was improper on summary judgment a start was step to the two and four patent claims do not merely cover computerizing human activity they don't simply claim using a computer to store and share user profile data instead the claims involve an inventive step beyond the prior computer based technology implementations that were each data element with a respective register user and the second association associates each data element with the a subset of users that can access that particular data element  based on this record all we know is that the the notion of storing the data with this granular then element by data element basis to allow users to perform their access control on an element by element in user by user basis that that was not conventional and the reason we know that your honor is not in on your honor it is in the claims so claim so claim one requires the data requires that the user selectively exercises control as to whether to grant or deny access on to each data element so each user exercises control with respect to but you're arguing this improves computer functionality because it reduces redundant copies of stored data it has you know one person that can make the changes the changes are then through well and that this overcomes problems with on its face admits that the prior art already permitted this it's just that it ministre there is rather than users did it so to the extent that there was any improvement in the computer functionality the redundancy in the memory issue that was to but so so you have a lot of arguments about the improvements the computer functionality the problem is all of those arguments he engine points single access can and that already existed the only novelty i see is putting that control in the hands of the abuser rather than the administrator and i don't see how that does anything to achieve any of the computer functionality improvements that you otherwise cite so tell me what i'm missing you just a backup for a second your honor the pan specification talks about really two different buckets  our computer implementations there is the one that you're identifying which is the centralized database in the alumni database example and then there's the other one which is storing the data locally on a user's computer using their applications and then transmitting it electronically to recipients who also store that data in their local databases or their local applications so those are the two buckets of the prior art the computer based implementations that existed prior to this invention this invention is trying to take the advantages of both of them in minutes minimize the disadvantages of both of them so i'm sorry what am i missing what is absent from the prior art the only thing i see absent from the prior art is user changes or controls them it's the administrator but all the same changes quotable can be made by a single individual the changes are made by the database administrator but the evidence show that it was typically made on an all or nothing basis so you provide your information to the alumni database for example and that's it you're out of the picture you don't have any ability to control on a granular basis which user is going to see which elements of your beta see the minister when you're just arguing to me there's a difference between a user administrators and once again i started by saying i agree with you with that difference exists that's the only point of novelty the problem for me is i don't see how that links up to the improvements in the functioning of the computer that you claim that is where you may be following your d d r where you've got some advantages in envision where there are some other cases out there that would help you those are the ones that are linked to technology that clearly improves computer functionality i don't see how your technology do that given your admission that solo centralized database controlled by the administrator was in the prior art and when those when the only advantages for the computer functionality you discuss are reduce redundancy in you know minimizing memory storage whatever whatever and all of those are achieved by the alumni example so i don't disagree that you have a point of novelty the user i'm just not sure that means anything at all in terms of any improvements to computer functionality so you therefore don't fall under that umbrella of cases where people got through the window one gate because of the improvements of the computer your honor with respect to the example that you're talking about it is true that the database administrator controls that but it controls it on an all or nothing basis that's that's what is shown in the background of the invention it's an all or nothing basis there is no ability to control the data elements individually so it's controlled by the user it's not it's not hinged on the data how you store the approving computer functionality that's what i guess i'm i'm trying to focus there are these look one i want is crazy space legally to try to figure out where each case fits within and you've thrown so many different cases but i do silos the i see i see that improve computer functionality cases in a particular silo i see them all revolving around this is something new that itchy has a particular advantage in the way the computer will operate and that's one of the arguments made and i in a database management system but even though it's being placed in that particular location in that database that is not local the user still has the ability to control the data that's that's the critical piece here and when we look at that and computer functionality is the thing that's why so is there is there something inventive about the user having the ability to control it it gets us over a potential abstract idea problem it's the way the data is stored on an element by element basis in the example a of the database administrator doing it they don't need to store the data the data on an element by element basis like this that the structure is different it's not necessary in that important computer functionality so why does the fact that the structure is different re sult in an inventive concept what i'm asking you is what is inventive about this i understand it's different but your honor the structure of the database diff it is defined by one way three problems is different that a fork with four problems that doesn't make it invented you understand why and i always i'm not going to be i'm not trying to be rude to you i'm just trying to find a way to understand your argument that i can fit it into somewhere some way that you could possibly w we have rapid litigation that for example relied on the reasons for allowance specifically to show that the claim combination was not conventional to the extent that the pattern a trademark office says this is what's inventive and i think under the supreme court case law we need to take a look and say is this is what isn't been of an abstract concept or isn't it and with respect to what the patent trademark office said it said that in particular that the ability to exercise  control on an element by element basis and on a user by user basis was something that was not that was had not been done before in the prior art that is our invented concept so what's left we look at that and we say is that an abstract concept or is that something in addition to the abstract concept it is not part of the abstract concept in this case which was merely a story in ensuring data this is a particular way to do that the patent trademark office said that it was and that's the evidence that is in this case that was ignored by the district court judge along with the decoration evidence that went into detail about exactly what the improvements were and exactly how those associations were made with that in lester's other questions i will reserve it to start backwards in terms of the file history i think perhaps one of the most helpful cases is intellectual ventures versus erie indemnity company issued in two thousand and seventeen which specifically address the issue of whether or not something was addressed during prosecution history in saying that the arguments regarding the prosecution history were unpersuasive because quote while claims may not have been anticipated or obvious because the prior art did not disclose the criteria that does not suggest that the idea of selecting the files is not abstract citing the intellectual ventures versus symantec decision here the issue of want to one wasn't raised by the prosecuti prosecuting attorneys or the examining attorney at all in fact it was a first office action allowance which simply stated that they didn't find anything in the prior art i'm reminded of a quote that i read in a case that said that einstein for example was clearly novel when he came up with the equals mc squared but that didn't necessarily make it any less abstract as a mathematical formulation so i don't think that moves the needle here i also agree with judge morse comments that there is nothing here that improves the functioning of the computer in fact if we look back to the claims themselves the claims themselves list only generic components the network site in column eight lines thirty one through thirty three in appendix eighty five which tells the reader to use an off the shelf oracle database so these are nothing more than conventional systems and conventional components working in conventional ways in fact the claim is agnostic as to where that functioning actually occurs we hear a lot of the this having to be at a centralized server or it has to be somewhere remote from the network device but the claim actually doesn't require that at all the claim simply requires that there be a database management system connected to the network that could just as easily happen on the network device and therefore no analogy to bascom is appropriate here instead the claims merely require that you take profile information and break it down into elements that exact same abstraction was discussed in the content extraction case as well as the cyber phone and accenture cases i v capital one bank also specifically talks about it being abstract to associate a profile with a user and then apply rules to that profile information that's been stored in order to determine who has access to it sending to different people based on those rules is also specifically contemplated in the cyber phone capital one and accenture cases and finally the claims here fail because they never explain how to do any of those associations as was discussed specifically in the two way media case that recently was issued by this court therefore all we have is a human problem that of sending different information to different people being solved in an abstract way without any indications of how or any computer improvement being made to the functioning of the computer itself unless you're honest have any questions that i'm just going to go back and revisit the issue about the structure the database structure is dictated by the claims there are associations that are required that provide the infrastructure support that allows the user to execute the element by element in user by user access control and then claim to defines how those associations are made on a user by user and on an element by element basis both of those things relate to the structure of that database just like in fish was focused on the structure of the database it was a set it's not this is not a self referential database but it still is focused on the structure of the database how you orient the database the controls that you place in the hands of the user to allow them to be able to exercise that control those are things that are not present in the prior art that patent trademark office in the reasons for allowance indicated that that was inventive it's not abstract it's focused on the structure and for that reason step two was improperly found it to the district court judge in step two improperly found that the claims were purely conventional they're not purely conventional how do we know look at the intrinsic evidence look at the declaration the district court did not get either of those in the weight the district court did not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof that's required in order to attack an invalidity finding on section one hundred one and for that reasons your honor we respectfully request that the court reverse the district court judge with respect to its finding on patent patent in eligibility unless you have any other questions