have to be converted into a stream of as your eyes and wants of bits and bytes that describe to the computer the real information on the document that the computer can understand once a computer obtains its information with some  involved problem and it can identify the different characters and entire fields as we described in a way that would be understandable to a person skilled in the art i important to know that it's not only difficult for a computer to understand writing a document but vice versa it is impossible for a person to look at the stream of this is a qualitative difference in process and between the way a computer the thousand and the way human brain does it if the entire field effect official intelligence is seeks to teach computers program computers how stream of characters that again i'm not immediately not even a recognizable for a computer by a computer and then you need some processing to recognise the different fields such as amounts  the supreme court i think that one could regard that as a software for one thing genetically or that particular one would seem to be ineligible under section one on one so we know at least some categories of software based inventions are no good under section one and we know that and let's just assume for argument that there are some categories of software that infections are ok why does yours fall in the latter category and not the former catholic i have three  the couple of the early supreme court cases the two mathematics cases parker and anson are obviously not sort of financial practice cases that are abstract for you know perhaps a different reason but having  with mathematics and we've had a couple of cases here including but to detect is that the quite recent one about data but itself so that at the heart of this is about dealing with information recognizing it storing it why isn't that enough to get to the second stage that the supreme court now prescribes in alice that says show me something arguably inventive about the fundamental basic algorithm that could be used anywhere for any purpose and that if you accept certain things about the laws of mathematics the how to transform a binary code the at what's going on before talking about whether a computer is about and identify something abstract then you do have to ask what does the computer and add to that and now in alice tears what is inventive about the computer you're using to do that yes so if you invented a new optical character reader that would that might be an answer to that question if you invented a new way of storing things that was particularly efficient or something maybe that would be but is there something like that in here or is it simply saying what we want to do is you know do what a human being does when looking at a check to recognize where the amount is and where the page is and so on and then storing it in a way that some of our in our in our minds we can do this or we can do it with a pencil and paper but we're not teaching anybody how to do just saying use a computer to do what people have been doing for a long time we have had much more that we have taken basic building blocks of human ingenuity we added to them we have disclosed how to identify the different fields with different variables on the document so that the parts of the information from those fields can be routed through the appropriate memory allocation can a human being do it yes but that the human being do it in the same way as a computer no and that's where information it's good to substitute machines for human labor it's always been that way and we have added something we have shown how to do some of the things that were not known before and i'm not sure to what degree we can confo the novelty of the one or two and one of those three inquiries was one the one obviously this has been recently done but i think just a bare minimum showing at this stage especially at and went to the the the use of a scanner to read numbers on checks is decades old right i you you can use a scanner to digitize information but the information doesn't come back as the characters that we used to seeing it comes back on i'll be very brief them to you represent oh i'm sorry i represent i'm speaking of i represent wells fargo is my client but i'm speaking on behalf of all our police on the substance of my my adversary suggests that they teach how to do this i suggest that purely and simply the relevant question asked by the supreme court is whether the these patents do more than simply instruct the practitioner implement the abstract idea of extracting information and putting it down on a piece of paper and transmitting it and storing it in some way to be that could be done by a generic computer with the addition of a scanner and judged your question yes scanners have been known for a very long time indeed and there is there was nothing brought to the district court your question judge and the district court was not called to attention with respect to any claims as to say look at these claims these claims have that knowledge will subject matter and you should look at these claims and perhaps my observing the spoke the only thing that was told to the district court and the exact language i think is found it to a two forty three of the appendix they told the district court that we anticipate that many of the claims will be disputed and will as will other things but there was no suggestion as to what the claim terms should mean by either party rather what the district court concluded i think correctly on the basis of both the description that was given and i always bring a hard copy as i'm sort of the old school of the appendix you eleven the district court concluded that the basic character of the claim subject matter in dispute in this action is clearly evident to the court and no further construction of the claim is required and indeed there was no dispute as to what the basic character of the subject matter was the judge looked at it concluded that there that the subject matter of these and almost all of it was this very familiar off the shelf stuff one of the things described in the specification and then in some of the claims was in fact technologically new way of doing to point out any any specifics like that and they get the short answer to you is yes on the language that i use is actually out of this court's opinion and bank services versus on life calling the better basic character of the claim to subject matter and and that very clearly was evident the district judge and you're absolutely correct what my position would be in front of the district judge had well there's one patent for eligible subject matter what's the right answer with respect to what a district judge should do but one of them is not to grant a motion on the pleadings with respect to at least those claims whether it goes beyond that depends on what the pleadings he and what i hear of what i have believed in reading this pleading here was not you wells fargo in you p and c in french claims one three five seven and nine but mary you infringed these four patents and no specificity and that's perfectly permitted no question not there's nothing wrong with an adult but once the subject matter of the patents is made an issue as to whether or not they are pat burden of proof but burden of persuasion of coming forward to say the district judge wait a minute look at these if you look at these you will see that at least these are within the patent eligible subject matter and then the district judge can decide and it seems to me here although there was some complaint about represent the representation representative quality excuse me of the claims that were discussed there was nothing put to the district judge that suggested that there was any part of  moment as much as a student of law at least as an advocate it seems to me that if in fact there were claims within each of the patterns that could be argued would work that wasn't done here it was clearly patents and let me take one claim from each patent just to make it a little more complicated candidly and that's not the case here candidly i don't know what exactly the right answer is but at least with respect to those claims if they're my my intimation would say at the pleading stage if you show that there is a claim we have been a patent that has fat and eligible subject matter and you've got two hundred forty two claims here to deal with it seems har to say well we're going to we're only going to look at those four frames that seems a little hard on the other hand to say that you are going to dismiss the the tire pattern when there has been shown to be patentable subject matter within that that that seems a little harsh as well so so to me the balance says and it's it's so it's almost procedural or send you seem to be making this very complicated and you move for s completely proper i thought i was responding to judge chen's questions a slightly different hypothetical with respect to that and and in other circumstances i think it does just might become a little more complicated but it isn't complicated here the subject matter of these patents was put into issue and was argued and shown not to be eligible for patent the plaintiff's patent he came in and in i sort of  circuits did not address a situation like this morning in which there was an entire series of cases of caissons what difference would it make if it effects if and or if a individual case doesn't provide can't be extortion go along and well in this particular case had a minimum we have a situation where three other patents from this pan with the same specification asserted by the same individuals under different corporate ambr been in flux like the the basic claims of these patterns have always been very very similar this is a very slight difference between the claims that were an issue in the glory versus what is russia's which was ruled pington community use a sham it's a part of your motion has to say here's why this is objectively baseless and it seems to me you say a few things none of which individually or together objective basis one is that another patent when asserted was subjectively baseless and i don't see how you how that's a plausible basis for concluding that the assertion of this one was as you say their same owner again shame on are going to have different patents i forget what the third basis was i'm not even sure you said it was one one let's assume for a minute that the one hundred one even if they win you are right about invalidity it wasn't subjective baseless i don't understand what else there is in the argument review have to make an argument against a motion to dismiss exactly the way they have to make an argument and in response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings to say here are specific decision and he didn't make any reference to any one on one decision in that order but in his prior order i'm granting what you fix to p s the one i was you had a lot of discussion about chase's like dealer track sattar and so those are the only case law decision that as far as i can tell judgeship had any at contemplation about what he said what he said in in determining that this was were patents owned by a closely related entity and so you're right he didn't specifically call it out he did he didn't have that much specific to say in the opinion dismissing or coins what up what are the i want to come back briefly to what we have asked the district court to do and the record at eight thirty six eight to thirty seven we identified a number of limitation what does it mean recognizing for for some factual development to understand the meaning of the claims to understand the meaning of the terms now regarding the the claims that we have actually discussed each claim is considered to be separate it's own invention there's a presumption  what individual claims were different from the ones that were being treated as representative of their total of two hundred forty two clans and they have now you're the one to decide to assert two hundred forty two crimes why don't you have an obligation to say these