i want to start with the misapplication of the van more exception under section one on one and within that we believe there are two fundamental errors the first fundamental error is it was undisputed of that the product accused of infringement was released after the critical day and in our view the van were exception applies narrowly to where the patentee actually accuses a product and the defendant or the the accused infringer is able to prove that that actual that exact product was on sale prior to the critical day there was no evidence of that here rather the court shifted the burden to the patentee and look for proof of substantial differences between the product that was accused of infringement and the product that was previously sold which is your time that is a different direction her should have compared the prior to the claims as opposed to comparing in a branding or trade name and they could have proven they were material identical that would have fallen under the van were exception that was not the case here is not a case of the only look you raising  accused product was merely an updated version of the prior are there was no said such admission that was strenuously disputed below he also made an incorrect finding that our expert who had compared the accused product for the accused product to the source code for the alleged prior art and found that the critical piece of source code the source code that was inserting the color identification substituting the phone number for a virtual telephone number in the car identification field had a copyright date of two thousand and nine well after the critical thing so we we believe that was a fundamental error that there was evidence and record that the two products were materially different and yet he didn't properly credit that evidence and some are just regarding want to one your honor starting with a single number out all claims the judge characterized those claims as directed to a common a problem of human on availability and we would respectfully disagree the claims are directed to the patent claims are directed to a problem with then existing telecommunications and telephone systems and propose a  organization sure thank you so what the claim is directed to is in opposing what's claimed as a call processing system in between the calling party and the called party storing within that call processing phone numbers for the subscriber to the service so for example you would store your cell phone number in your office number at the call processing system and rather than from your cell phone which has its own unique telephone number directly calling the person you want call you instead as as its claims you participate in the call the call processing system we call that call processing system that call processing system recognizes because you've already programmed your cell phone number into it that you're a subscriber and example rather than just dialing directly to the caller five or five as would have been conventional the call goes to the soft switch and that would then the software to the call processing system would bridge that call to the call that would allow if you wanted to continue the call from your desk phone your to work through under your or your mobile phone you could simply press a key and have the software which switched the phone in this example from the fixed phone your desk in this example to your mobile phone without dropping the call so the there is no record evidence that the placement of a call processing system or soft switch in this arrangement where this off switch is replacing the fixed phone number in this example or the mobile phone number in this example with a virtual telephone number that was conventional or not so that that's what i'm pointing to and that that is captured and in the claims th  but quite sixteen specifically calls out the virtual telephone number as an additional feature so what are the novel arrangement and in our view it is these claims do not deal with human on availability not switched to another device it will go to voicemail but their proposal we shouldn is not just directed to a general concept it's to assess specific technical improvement in the call by introducing this call processing system in the middle of the call for and that what the judge identifies is directed to the different set of claims the sequential ring claims not the single number outcomes so even where he what he points to as the abstract concept of human on the court were to reach step two it would find that the claims were directed to an abstract idea we believe the court engaged in an improper fact finding exercise finding that he claimed accommodation was merely conventional and hypothesizing about a what a assistant may have done in the past without pointing to any record evidence that anyone had actually acted in that manner or that if someone had acted in that manner he would possible without actually referring to record evidence to support this fine book but we do believe that this case is closest to the visual memory case while the claims and the specification do discuss arrangements of conventional components they're not claiming an abstract idea to which the computer or conventional components are mere eight you know ancillary they're in fact describing and claiming a system itself and that system is pat the fact that it has advantages to the human beings is not render a patent eligible law the question for the court is are the claims merely directed and having their caller id publishes their cell phone number the improvement as if you have a common virtual telephone number a common caller id providers or somewhere to say that's the abstract idea where you see improvement to this computer system shutting abstract idea aside sure so the computer system based on it opposing the call processing system between the cellphone and the party being called and programming can call processing system and it's in the claimed way that call processing system can intercept the call and provide additional functionality that was not available in conventional telephones meaning if the party that you called called you back the call processing system could control where the call went to based on programming that wasn't available in conventional telephone systems that the conventional telephone systems at the time they were a one to one relationship between the call called party and the calling party this provides an improvement if it's an improvement where you can use multiple physical phone terminals and publish the same number so that you can control where and how and when a person can call you back so the technical improvement is putting that call processing system in a particular place in the call and there's an extensive description in the specification of how the respect further to the eleven single number outcall claims a secure a verse of the judgment of anticipation of those claims based on the accused brought works software the record evidence and logs to make compel a ferment for the district court's ruling in all respects like the star the want to one issues i don't tell in its briefing and here this morning has had little if anything to say about the actual claim language issue here but i submit that the language of the claims tells the story of patent you know legibility under what i want these claims are quite simple claims that are directed to methods of organizing human activity and they are written in purely functional result oriented terms much like the claims that this court found to be patent in eligible cases such as affinity labs electric power and in re t l i communications now the single number outcall claims are directed to the abstract idea of identifying a caller using a single representative telephone number or telephone address as the district court correctly found the single number i'll call claims that their core involve storing data in a database looking up that data from the database in arrangement of the components for below the in the summary judgment and and judgment on the pleadings hearing the district court asked counsel for the pat owner to identify what it is that the that call a believe was non conventional invented here counsel admitted during oral argument that the communications protocols that issue were well known technologies that sort appendix five one eight seven page thirty lines one through six helen also conceded below that the hardware utilized was known at the that's an appendix five on a page thirty four seventy eight what appellant argued is inventive is the combination of different hardware elements and then programming the interaction of those different hardware on that's to provide something novel but the claims in the specification say nothing about any particular inventive combination of the known admittedly conventional hard around that or about particular software programming to achieve any technological improvement to the call processing system itself so this case is nothing like the post alice cases cited in the  and the claims themselves must for sight what the inventive concept is there's no hook in the specification here that describes a particular technical problem to be solved that was overcome by a particular whatsoever anything that would qualify as an inventive concept under step two so i'm not sure what else the patent owner could have done but to the extent there are certain now that there is some sort of technological problem that was solve an inventive combination of elements in software programming it's incumbent on them to identify where in the patent that's actually disclosed they really can't do it and the problem that's identified in the patent as one to be solved similar to what the judge below said about a human and availability problem the problem or site in the specification to be solved is supposedly the frustration and dissatisfaction of customers who are unable to connect with someone they're calling that can lead to lost sales so the specification says this problem gets solved in the case of the signal of alcohol claims by inserting into the caller id field a representing  phone number so the called party can recognize who's calling instead of you know might be a spam robo collar and you don't want to answer the call but if you see the representative telephone number of a colleague of yours or or a client you'll pick it up in the case of claims the alleged problem of customer dissatisfaction is supposedly solved because the system will serially call one phone number after another associated with a particular scryer subscriber  the subscriber picks up the call or all the list of numbers is exhausted that's purely for the business problem that's not a technical problem and there's nothing in the claims of the specification the talk about  technical problem that gets solved by a particular inventive concept so for example if the call process is somehow there or something we need to different thing to do to change the call processing city could implement this function is that the kind of thing you're referring to i mean you said there's nothing in the specification i'm asking what kind of thing do you think we should be looking for that the it's kind of hard to say there's nothing what we're kind of thing would be different do you have an idea we'll here is opponent minute below everything disclosed in the specification about the hardware components and the particular communications technology was known right so what they're saying now is there something about the combination of these known elements that provides that inventive concept but they haven't identified what that is because it isn't there and i can't imagine what it is they could have disclosed that would that would give credence to i did want to know first before i move on that on the issue of what the problem to be solved was not being a technical problem appellant stated on page twenty nine of its reply brief put the specifications however teach that the s n o claims improve the telecom experience for subscribers with multiple communication devices close quote that an improved experience for users does not equate to a technological so in that regard this case is analogous to cases such as enroll in retail and content extraction which involve claims directed to generic computer functions such as storing or treating and extracting data in conventional ways without any claimed technological improvement now move on to the one of two issues briefly in my remaining time regarding summary judgment of anticipation of the single number outcall claims based on the broad works software as i understand the argument it's that the district court simply relied on the van more exception but in fact here and it in addition to our pointing out that throughout the case the patent owner had accused broad words generally and in particular all single number i'll call functionality within broad works of meeting these claims we also put on essentially a traditional anticipation case we put on including through our expert detailed analysis with claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the prior versions of broad works showing what we make of the fact that  affirm the anticipation finding none the less based on the extensive record evidence that broad submitted that included comparing the asserted claims to prior art versions of rod works that have the single number outcall capabilities in particular i would direct your honour's to the release a demonstration videos that broadsides expert dr elder ing prepared brought such was able to put together a working call processing system driven by release eight of broad works which came out no later than january of two thousand and three more than a year and a half before the critical date our expert d elder ing demo that system and showed how it provided all of the aspects of the limitations of the asserted claims he submitted the videos and they're in the record here in the  system and the reason is clear they they knew what he would find in that prior system and they didn't want him subjected to questioning under oath in deposition from a about the capabilities of that system they weren't interested in disc the truth about the prior broad works releases instead they had their expert not look at the system and then rankly speculate that it may not be authentic in the district court appropriately rejected that argument they provided no evidence whatsoever that it was an authentic we had mr samuel hof power provide a declaration test into how the system was put together and the authenticity of the release date software we had our expert demonstrate the system and go claim on no claim element by claim element comparing it to the asserted claims and they offered nothing in response other than well maybe this isn't the real deal and maybe it wasn't actually released to the public but we had release after release after release say up for release eleven point one also being prior art to these indentions and we submitted evidence through mr hof power who is the head of r and d it brought south and helped develop broad works that these releases all contain the same single number outcall functionality that was shown in this release a demonstration video prepared an expert so at the end of the day the way this appellant challenges the want to finding is by speculating by asserting that well maybe these call processing functionalities that are in release eight were removed before before the release of the version that they actually now want to accuse after the critical date but in fact that they did here was the cutest prior functionalities within broad works we provided them with the evidence of that they tried to strike that evidence from their record in the district court rejected that and then they changed their tune and said oh we're only accusing this thing called broad works anywhere in the store hof power testified this is under feuded that the single number outcall functionalities within broad works anywhere are based on the same single number of call functionalities that were in we cited in our brief for example some district court cases that that looked at the material identity question including the cummings versus adidas  anything any specific description of how the call processing system operates i would i did point earlier to figure thirty one a point specifically in a column sixty seven wind twenty nine through column sixty line twenty two where there is a detailed and specific description of how the call processing system described in the figure as the soft which is interposed in an unconventional way such that where a conventional system someone trying to call from their cell phone would call directly to the call party instead there is a description of a unique call flow that is specifically set forth where the caller calls instead of the software church and the sophs which are based on stored information and specific detailed and specific description of how one example of how the car id is substituted in that scenario column sixty six winds twenty to thirty council incorrectly stated as well that there is no description of there is a detailed description of variables and uses of variables in order to allow the call processing system that is claimed to perform the claimed functionality in a novel way so  if as counsel said to move from an abstract idea to something concrete and tangible he indicated that some description of a software functionality would be sufficient there is extensive description of software functionality and how the call processing exception and the disregards application of that there are several things that i want to take issue with the first councils implication that by sending one expert instead of a different expert that's somehow an admission that the prior art was identical  kids product this is a procedurally unique situation where this invalid in france was raised i believe it was two and a half years after the deadline for invalidity after a fact discovered concluded after all expert discovery was concluded and we were given only a couple days to perform the inspection at which one of our experts was not available the expert who did inspect the system did put in a declaration describing in detail how the so the source code for the alleged prior art was materially different and how the challenger had met their burden dr who can tell me he was our second expert provided a detailed declaration was shooting the element by element analysis and there's nothing on record suggesting that this record credited their expert nor should  is identical in all material respects to it legibly infringing product cannot constitute clear and convincing evidence of invalidity anticipation requires a showing that each element of the claim at issue it goes on is found in a single prior art reference of our contentions that there is a common trade name used across products but from our infringement contentions which were submitted very early in the case indeed declaratory judgment plaintiff when opposing a motion to dismiss specifically identified the broad works anywhere as the accused product so from the outset of their declaratory judgment a case through our infringement contentions through expert discovery it was crystal clear that