computer if done with specificity the board struggled in the final written decision trying to identify what it believed was the improvement to the system without the benefit of running or the court determined that there was no benefit i think that that was so you're saying there's an improvement to the security of the system absolutely the security of the system well it is at improving yes so what the claim does it adds in  adding storage so you can store movies and the tivo era started coming out there was a pro problem with that is the content providers did not want to allow their data to be stolen we know adapter and so forth and the with the user's normal operation of the system normally a user if you store data on your computer you always have access to that data and you can do it that you can play it you can share it you do whatever you want to do with this system does is it overrides the user's ability to have unfettered access to the data that stored on the system so the microprocessor controls what functions the users able to impart a program into the play that  access is pretty broad here i mean you do have the language deleting or scrambling seems more specific but then the claim says or blocking for their access to the data i mean walking further access to the data is broad enough to cover deleting scrambling and any other thing that would prevent a person from being able to access the data so isn't that pretty broad well too and the st is i think it is broad more specific than that so i don't believe that blocking includes deleting for example so one of the benefits of the patent is that the data is never actually returned to anybody so if the microprocessor decides to invoke the simulated return it  can void your authorization key access key so you no longer have access to it or it could scramble it but the data is still there on the box and that's a real vulnerability problem as microprocessor prevents that from being accessed the benefit is improved efficiency as well to the system the patent talks about priest or inner prefetching data that can be on the system this is on the other side is when you have finished reading the movie or game or something like that is you can rerented again i don't think it includes deleting and scrambling is very specific so while scrambly would i guess i don't think scrambly blocks you from the data it says that if you let me just give an example  we talk about a column ten if you start line one on down we talk about specific techniques on how you can scramble the data and it talks about the serial code management system as an example and where it degrades the quality of the data such that it's not usable for pirating and so forth i think that that's what is talking about the screenplay is it makes it unusable i don't think that that's the same as blocking think that's the distinction and they're very similar and i'm not going to dispute that it's somewhat broad but you know that gets into the one of twenty one of three issues the it gets into one that wang two to a certain extent when you're talking about having enough specificity that you can see it's a technological improvement for example that's so i do think the breadth of the plank in that and i don't disagree with that i think though that we can look at the complaint and the specification understand the effect of what blocking entails that that the blocking that we have is positional that the microprocessor is in between the devices and only passes through what controls you have i believe that's what the the blocking is and also the  code ok did you have any other examples that you wanted to identifying a specification for the meaning of blocking so if we go to well i would maybe i can i can find one  different scenarios right correct and so this is somewhat similar to the microprocessors the regular computer well yes and using conventional elements to override the normal function of the system is content correct and that's exactly what happened in court and cora they use the bios memory to store the license key they didn't change bios they didn't make it bios better they didn't change any other components but by placing the data in the it blocked the user or hacker should be able to get to the license key that's a passive akim we have an active blocking my process or actively prevents it through the arrangement here we are solving the same security anywhere in the claims it doesn't seem like the field of the invention is talking about security it's talking about computerizing return data in a in a very very broad way why isn't this just the same thing that was going on in alice who was taking some kind of fundamental business practice that occurred in the real world and just writing software for it and not stadium with nine starting at line sixty five to the st line of column ten and it talks about the system being able to add this copywriting protection to prevent the unauthorized implication of intellectual property pirates and if you really look at claim one the st elements one through the were not disputing that those are fairly conventional elements but we've added to the system is the element f which gets in between the user's ability to have unfettered access to program the processing functions and to access the data this is very similar to use the bios to prevent a hacker from accessing the license key and core i mean the plain language of eft looks like it's talking about how you digitally return or otherwise block data doesn't sound like it's directed to copyright or any of those things it doesn't say anything about that well you know of course the claim is informed by the specification and if you look especially here you can point to a few examples in the specification that are certain benefits of certain embodiments but it doesn't seem over all that it's directed at is directed at the idea and this new digital world of digital transmission of data we have to find some equivalent to somebody going back to the you know old blockbuster and putting it through the mail slot well it's not just but you're not we we don't actually physically return and  benefits we would be no different than it blockbusters policy was these v h s cassette tapes and i'm dating myself obviously by the age of us but are so cheap that instead of returning them just promise to throw them in the trash so  processor to the mix that interferes with the user using that processor to access the data as that's the difference between the two if you look at the claim you would then just say the processing circuitry thirteen would be the typical microprocessor in a computer we've done is added something to the system that overrides the user's ability to use that microprocessor the the playback circuitry in the process circuitry to access the data so it limits the user's ability to do something i think your honor think least court this is a case that falls very clearly into the heart of aliceville so what we have is a claim that embodies the fundamental economic practice of renting content it is done in the context of some limitations which limit that fundamental economic context to a particular technological environment but that's exactly the thing alice tells us it's not enough to remove the claim from being directed to an abstract idea this court's case law following that sort of discussion and  it's i think it's broken step one and two through two classifications of cases one where there is an accomplishment in computer science or engineering the other where you have a conventional business practice being implemented using technology that already exists and this case is very definitely in that nd category there is nothing in the specification that describes how this process or that was just talked about interferes with the user's use of the system or something of a claim that describes or discusses interfering with the user's operation of the system  that improves the security of the system that is a microprocessor that's implementing the abstract idea of renting content which is fundamental economic practice so yeah i completely disagree that there's anything there that's new in terms of improving security in fundamental technologies of digital rights management which we could argue would be inventive and probably could have passed one hundred and one muster are not at issue in this case those are all conceded to be prioritised mix so if there was a technical problem that had to be solved to rented material when it does this simulated determine mean i'm not saying that that's enough to to make it eligible under one at one time i mean that there is something that microprocessor is in this paragraph limitation doing something what does something that's actually i mean the way that claim element is drafted it's not clear to me that it's actually the microprocessor that's necessarily doing that it could very well be the processing circuitry that's doing that that's i think an ambiguity in how the claim is drafted and it's i think intentionally a mean i can see in any any system like a processor is doing something that's going to restrict how the system operates that's the point of microprocessors you know have a system run according to some algorithm so i mean i can see that there is definitely something that is involved in implementing this idea of renting the data which necessarily means that there's going to be an into that rental period at some point but the claim is get not specific at all about how that's done and as i think question has pointed out it's broadly directed to any kind of blocking whether that's leading or scrambling to get all those rolled analogies but the claim is clearly trying to get it anyway that you would restrict access to the to the rental content at the end of the rental period i can see that that's in the claim but that's not a technological solution it's not a technical solution at all it's just the fundamental economic practice of renting least from the time of the institution decision how to resign notice of what the people thought these claims were directed to that that was an abstract idea and they had the entire trial to submit arguments and evidence that would suggest that that was correct so at least with respect to the to notice problem in all of this court's prior case law where there is some sort of notice problem found it's where there was a theory that was changed midstream and there was no notice given to the pattern or that's not this case suddenly addressed the nd just as if that defining an abstract idea is different than  being is being in two parts the st part is just trying to determine the thing the claim is directed to and then you ask is that thing abstract right so there is there is the st part of that task requires something like a claim analysis in this case you're not doing a typical markman claim analysis you're not trying to find out what the full scope of the claim is and exclude things that are outside instead you're trying to do reductive exercise of develop the sense of what is this claim although it has many elements what are they really directed to which which things are the claims directed to as opposed to that sense i think you can draw a lot of analogies between the director to inquiry and claim construction and in some but again in this case it's sort of irrelevant they get the board gave the construction here's what the claims are directed to and it never changes throughout the entire proceeding now they did out a word from what was in the petition and so that was a separate argument that i think is made by the patent owner and there again we don't think there is any any problem given that that change was made in direct response to arguments were being made but at no owner point to complain that our conception of what the claims were directed to which did not include that word electronic of titian was essentially to reductive it was ignoring aspects of the claim that made clear it was tied to this electronic environment the board ultimately agreed with that critique of our view of what the claims were directed from the other circuitry i just think important point out that the piece had made some very clear factual findings that this court should defer to there's been no reason to call the question it was certainly sufficient evidence for them to make make these facts findings so for instance if you look include any number of circuit signal processors filters or other data manipulation devices known in the art microprocessor may also include but is not limited to one or more of the following processing circuits or devices citing a patent and then they go on we agree that this directly supports petitioner's assertion that the separation of the processing circuitry from the microprocessor was quote well understood conventional and  like sixty five cut through thirty eight line to relevant part talks about that the automatic cancellation of an actual ascii code prevents further access doesn't describe it as being you're going to unscramble and so forth so i think that they are separate with respect to the abstract idea the kits i don't think that adding those four steps is just say in the same thing as the idea of delivering rigid kind electric content to a user our claim is not about delivery or claim it's about what to do and how to protect the data anybody decides they want to rent it so your cable box would already have the movies on the box but if you look at the claims in any way well i've given you an example of what the evidence would be as were contesting that these are inherent in abstract idea to which the claims directed they should and they didn't make the claim say the receiver apparatus receiving audio or video data from at least one data feeds that's not pre fab know what the argument is that they're saying these four steps are somehow equivalent of what they're already saying that they didn't change their lives their ideas and we would say that's not the abstract idea because we don't do that right our claim doesn't require abuse things that you're saying are the abstract idea that we're applied to so the somehow return is another one right we don't actually return that's the benefit of our system it's more efficient because if you want to rewrite it it's already there i don't know what somehow return necessarily a change in that definition of the abstract i did that and i'm sorry i misunderstood i didn't really get the gist of your question so he really gets into step two because when you go to step two we use the abstract idea the constructed attract idea is our guide to figure out that is providing the invented concept here with a small bit up in the way they recast the abstract idea so we would have put on other evidence to say well we have other things that don't fit your abstract idea if we don't do what you're saying is the abstract idea then we can't be directed to the abstract idea so i think it really gets into the loop were prevented from have an effect except to analysis in our cases sometimes we have a definition of an abstract idea that differs from what different district court said was the abstract idea with the board said it was an abstract idea would that be improper i mean your view of how this is supposed to work maybe you know i say it depends on how close they are they're close i think that that's the for real case and so forth the issue is we're dealing with an administrative agency and there's bitter bitter rules when they come out in the initial decision and say this is what it is they can't change it they could have been silent on it then ounces the st time evidently that's ok they can't change what they're doing because it deprives us of our notice an opportunity to respond to what you cited i mean you can't sit there and get a criminal trial and say well we're changing with the charges would you conclude pleas