context of an abstract idea and here if you look at the claims it really does just require collecting information and then transmitting it and that has been following the plea by this court to be an abstract idea turning to step two of the alice analysis the claims do not anything that transforms that abstract idea into something that is at an eligible there is no inventive concept here the only argument the chamberlain has raised about an inventive concept is quote a new type of move where your operator includes an obviously disagree with that your honor the claim is the basic and simple it requires a controller that's coupled to a transmitter a wireless transmitter a controller has to be coupled to a movie or interface and nothing more so the fact that you're transmitting something wireless not merely transmitting information using a conventional transmitter is the abstract idea and so the fact that b s g tells us if the claims only advance a concept is the application of an abstract idea using conventional well understood components that hasn't been transformed in anything that's actually patentable so i think p s g definitive on that and the only argument they raise is supposedly some new order combination but they haven't specified what that combination is and again if you look at the claim language presented to the jury that way the issue was presented to the jury that you could come that the references disclose all that it's a shame that the language that you object to in the jamie was never in a jury instruction wasn't the testimony from our expert about the white reference was absolutely submitted to the jury that it wasn't my question the language that you complain and judge used when citing microsoft in the  never in a jury instruction submitted to the jury i think that's correct i don't i don't know right and you don't raise any issue with respect and you know that's correct we don't hear so the question that we have to analyze is whether or not substantial evidence supports the jury's finding under the instructions as given right you do he so the fact that the district court might have misspoken in the jamie doesn't answer the question well i think it does i think because there is no substantial evidence to support the other side of this if you look at what's in the disclosure that's under speed it's under speed of what's in the disclosure the simple question is whether legally those two things go together in anticipation and we think the judge got it wrong and that's why it should be reversed here i want to go back said to some even chamberlain can see that they don't have to be in the same physical housing and the specification undeniably says that the system ten thousand dollars is coupled to using the exact same language required by the claim geo one thousand dollars that is found on comprises three things a controller at the center couple to a movie or interface which is the gears in the motors and the rail and the transmitter and one are discloses that the processor twelve thousand is the controller given that anticipated rush in fact i don't think so because the only evidence that the jury heard was testimony from chamberlain's expert but the case law tells us if that language is contrary the testimonies country what's actually in the claim court's contradictory that it is not substantial evidence and i think it's both here if you look at the claim it requires a controller coupled to nothing more opposite couple to a transmitter and it will bear interface so why didn't you put on any it says other embodiments of the system are also contemplated one of which includes the garage door opener as part of the system so if there was any concern about whether these things had to be integrated it is expressly disclosed as an alternative five and i'd like to move and briefly about the nd requirement the operational status condition when are discloses that the specification is very thin on the two hundred and seventy five patent about what it requires i would enter chamberlain's theory if you transmit a signal that says simply the light is on that single is defined by the light being on and it's also defined by the light not being off a condition that's not present possible when our discloses that it discloses multiple conditions with multiple discrete operating states and a level at least a that if we practice essentially what men are well i think there are because we transmit one piece of information a time in our disclose a transmitting multiple pieces of information at a time so it's a distant is a distinction that makes it even less likely the district court let the infringements verdict stand based on a signal that was defined by a condition it carried in a potential but not present condition that is absolutely something that's not being experiencing cannot comply with the district quickly instruction with that i'd like to stop and reserve to a machine and what's the distinction between that and this the distinction is that every claim where it was to a system that had to be performed on machine what they said analysis and what this court has said repeatedly in all the other there is no new physical combination of the two they have here's what we have we have a movable barrier operator so it's a physical device how has it improved it's improved over the prior art because until this claim there were no movable barrier operators where integrated within the movable barrier operator were three things a controller a movable barrier interface and a wireless status condition data transmitter ok that's offered in this patent the idea of sending out these notification messages and so that's where i get worried for this claim is that feels like an abstract idea sending out notifications about the status of something here it happens to be a movable barrier operator that nevertheless sending out status messages that you know to fox about a particular thing sounds like an abstract idea and i don't see any kind of proof meant here in any underlying technology as to for question use why is it was directed to an outright you're communicating information because the improvement is that all of these they may be traditional hardware wireless transmit a controller and a a controller and move o'berry interface and a wireless transmitter never before when they integrated into a movable barrier operator and not a system to well as this court has recognized that sometimes great area when you go from step one to step two when you should do that in this case the court found it was a step one issue and the improvement is is in the specification it is details at that actually if we look at starting with column eleven dollars of the problems is until you integrated it you would have to hook up things physically and so he would have various modules which by the way is menard that's why we are not  menard is a garage door opener was physically coupled to this menard system ten thousand what our system does is by having everything integrated into the m b o you avoid all of these physical fuck ups that you have to do that's number one and that's pointed out in the specification the nd thing that it does is it gives you the flexibility of not having to do this physical interface where you might want to hook up to a peripheral you might want to transmit to a peripheral that doesn't even exist yet and that was a huge benefit this patent was filed in two thousand and three and today those transmissions that are received from the movable barrier operator letting you know if you forgot to closure for example you get on your i phone that didn't even until this was done movable barrier operators only receive transmissions opened my garage door closed my garage door until they were all integrated into this movable barrier operator invention they only get the one way transmission and the court respectfully disagree and i think the court the lower court found that it was actually the focus is exactly what the preamble says it is improving a movable barrier operator a physical device that didn't exist before this  find that the court was wrong on step one even if this is a baskin situation for example and the court was wrong on step one and then we go to step two and then we ask ourselves what is the invent court did but if you take them and move them into alice step two now you've got actual factual findings made by the court and then the question is were they clearly erroneous was this truly was the court clearly erroneous in saying that this barrier operator had never been done before and if that's the case if this is not patentable where you've got a physical device that had never been done before and have all these advantages over the prior ar barrier operator the transmitters generically the controllers generic what we have the and what many cases of sound for example baskin and the most recent one by this court that it is it's the combination of taking generic known components and combining them in a non generic way and if you can't do that i mean can start recognize that almost all inventions are starting with what's already known that's how you build the building blocks of what's already known and you do something unconventional with them so what we have here is an improved machine which is not abstract you can actually see it feel it touch it and known conventional components put together in an unconventional way and that's why whether it be alice step one which is what they just reported or alex step two what we have here as the district court found it is absolutely patentable if it's not i'm not sure i'm not appendix twelve dollars to nine dollars to that whole system is separate from it's not only not integrated it's completely separate from the movable barrier operator you could take menard and you could put it on your dishwasher put it on your refrigerator or you don't have to use it in conjunction with the movable barrier operator and that's where we're different and in fact if you look at bigger thirty one there is an actual physical couple of the garage door opener to the system ten thousand and of course the jury incorporated into the system ten thousand dollars so there would be some physical coupling between the box and the part of the same box right it would be part of the same box but it would be the opposite of our invention our invention is system ten thousand needs to be integrated into gigio one thousand minorities saying the opposite renard saying well you could put the g t o one thousand inside the dotted line it's saying the what our claim is claiming is the garage door opener and the components within it are a transmitter and receiver and the controller can see that there has doesn't have to be a physical  but i thought you can see that there didn't have to be a physical coupling of those these those three features to satisfy your limitation i don't believe he conceded that we can see that they didn't have to be in the same house in a physical housing that they couldn't because part of the movable barrier operator are the chains for example that are in a hole the middle barrier up and down so course they can't be in the same housing that wouldn't make sense and so we didn't concede that they didn't have to be coupled together in fact they do they have to be integrated all within the movable barrier operator in order to to reach the claim imitation integrated does not include coupling it doesn't have to include it being in the same house in your honour's how how i would answer it i'm not sure we ever talked about in the context of a physical clear and convincing evidence the jury heard unequivocal testimony from our expert that minority is different that it doesn't in fact it doesn't have the benefits of our invention because of the modular nature of it there would have to be some form of physical connection made and you wouldn't have the flexibility that our invention has in addition to that of course the jury was instructed that the burden was on the appellant and the one language that your honor pointed out when their expert was asked about that one phrase he said he found it confusing that is i think the exact opposite of clear and convincing evidence i would touch only at thirty five don with respect to ellis step one we heard arguments about improvements associated with integration of components but if you look at the claims that's not a requirement the claim is straightforward it requires couple things be coupled opera be coupled does not require integration it's not in the claims it's not even described in the specification for step two we heard something about a supposedly new order combination but it's just simply not there in the claims if you look at the claims again the controller has to be operating coupled to all the things a transmitter removal barrier interface that is things three things coupled together nothing more in terms of monarchy you heard arguments about it's supposedly a modular system that one thing is outside of the other and we heard the ready chamberlain argue with the movie or operator being the combination of ten million one thousand you can see all the components are there in the language in the specifications identical to what's in the claims it says the things are coupled to one another the last thing i want to talk about is damages you asked about that i think the one thing that we would need you to address is enhancements in attorney's fees that's an issue where it was not separated out it was given globally across both patents and here there is we think you can decide the issue there certainly isn't a basis given the