the claims of the nine o three patent in this case are directed to a specific method for use of a dual channel timing architecture and auto deactivate function that improves computing technology and is also necessarily r that technology the claims are not of mere abstraction but a cheat if you will a particular chemistry a useful result that is not previously been known in the industry let alone before the introduction of telecommunications and comput are binding on this court not at all your honor and i'm glad we have an opportunity to address that we think it's an interesting situation because the dippy temp results we we be that the district court reached regarding what was conventional technology whether the actual technological improvements were being made and for one example the court considered  stooge for example to a terminal to a service provider and then a separate channel to a phone which is a trusted link which was in the prior work to do with timing as between the two of them deciding about authentication with as a check as to whether we're pre determined time relation exists between the transmission of the user identification and the response from the nd channel and we recognize that this is this is tricky because as it as a pattern practitioner one has to come up with a term that captures the notion of a relation it doesn't specify exactly what that timing is that that's open for the service provider to conclude what would be most secure but isn't that told that that could be two hours right i mean your specifications that the pre determined time relation could be simultaneous or it could be some other time and pre determined time relations pretty broad bright i mean i understand what you're saying about it being a claim grafter a way to make sure that you keep the drive so you don't have people designing around based on certain amounts of time but you know this this claim language is pretty broad it could be two if there were some other way of putting it might might want to do indefinite problems but i don't think it's i think the breath issue was really addressed by the fact that it's in the context of the dual channel so i know that the appellee has been arguing that this is a claim  i i see them as as very closely related that computer and network technology are not exactly synonymous but bade they exist side by side nowadays it was a time when i was younger when computers were all detached from one another but now they're all networked so i think that the we're not saying that you know vacations have to do with the underlying computer hardware but it has to do instead with the architecture and in a way almost all computer inventions i would contend really involve issues of arrangement of data paths or links and nodes and relative timing i think the bulk of innovations  device they on appeal changed their argument to focus on the timing of the pre determined time relation that's something they paid no attention to in the district court in the reply brief they changed their argument again  not correct i mean i even apart from the fact that i think they have waived the argument that there is a sort of structured hierarchy here by not arguing it in the appellate brief ordering and structure of the concept appears to be the device on use it and turn it off and i think that's hardly something you can claim to be an inventive concept now that claim does say that the device will auto deactivate one but i think it's also hard to claim that that is an inventive concept my my toaster turn off my phone and my computer all turn themselves off after a period of inactivity and sense of is that really the invention here isn't the this court extended that to two factor authentication that occurred during a specified period of time and it is worth noting that those cases involved a technology that actually was a lot more clearly specified than the technology here the only thing that they point to in their appellate brief is this idea of a pre determined time relation but there's nothing in the pre determined time relation that suggests a particular time more importantly i think that is itself an abstract idea even if one were to say this is a novel ringback move which i don't think it is  only a general term pre determined time relation but again i think that even if you were to try to read that in as a limitation and that's something this court has repeatedly said you cannot do it would be irrelevant short period of time but it doesn't have to be the battle itself was the user is the person who turns the thing on and the concept of automated activation which is that of itself is fairly simple and not doesn't talk of shipping how it's done but what level of response to analyze claim am i supposed to look at each and every step and see whether each and every step is just something basic or should i look at the claim whole and see if it's providing a specific authentication technique rather i think you can do bold but i would suggest that neither each individual step nor the combination is itself something that is eligible because it's a technical solution to a technical problem what kind of details do you think would have to be i'm just i'm just trying to give you kind of a hypothetical here because you know we have to draw these line quite clear that we don't even need computers at all to do this the core terminal can be a banking machine or cashier or any other device the mobile device is it a particular advantage of the invention that the mobile device does not have and the the mobile device having a wireless link is core preferable but optional this is not something that is limited to a particular technology much less a way that changes that particular technology the idea is claim two factor authentication they are arguing this pre determined time relation but that is not i think inventive and more to the point i think that is itself an abstract idea and if it's an abstract idea even if it is a novel abstract ventures versus the men but it does the same thing in s a p vs invest pick it's not enough for subject matter eligibility that claim techniques be novel and non obvious we may assume the technology's claims are groundbreaking innovative or even brilliant that is not enough for eligibility so i think i think there are sometimes questions that are similar here but there's no even apart from the fact that this is a denial of institution and is not appealable was not binding not the same question one is there an abstract idea but i also think it's irrelevant in this case step two because the only thing the patent key point to try to find an inventive concept is itself an abstract idea and you can't do that specific new technology and that was in abstract that's what's being done here and then we're hearing well this is just this is just and and i have an abstraction without any real identification of why that would be i think could still raise the question about needing to look at the elements as a whole and i think that that applies in this context and is not just an idea has a specific method with a specific right here in a specific structure and that network structure  seems to me though that each step of the authentication seems to flow from the prior one so i like on off switch if the switch is often the only option is to have a turn on and once it's on the only option is to turn it off so