with law second there's no substantial evidence and third the patent office just the client by as is outlined in my briefs you don't even have to get to the evidentiary issue i know evidence is it's a little hot topic right now but if you turned it would say appendix one thirteen to one sixteen you'll find the examiners initial rejection it consists ignoring the bar boilerplate in the header but less than four hundred seventy words said the board did nothing more than affirm the examiner even though the examiner and the on the board also failed to address the claims as a whole and failed to address certain claims was a natural phenomenon but the extra steps were admitted as being well known routine and conventional in the specification of the patent and i think of unstuck opinion pages nine or ten of the stuff opinion and on the slip opinion of six so in this case the supreme court acknowledges that evidence is necessary and going to more some of the more recent decisions of which some of which you took part in  tricks and acknowledge that you know evidence is an issue and something to it to establish that something really is well accusations and it's a fix it conclusory remarks and it didn't it didn't even get to fair every didn't even get to every limitation and didn't even discuss limitations as a whole and you will find in the record to me i think just as important issue and substantial evidence i don't even know it's a patent prosecutor i've been prosecuting patents now for one thousand years i don't even know how to respond to that i don't even know an attorney who would know how to respond to this this starts prosecution because how do you argue evidence how do you argue evidence there when there's no evidence how do you argue something let's say a failure of an issue of law if the p t a be will not even enforce the issues of law that's why i'm here you're the only thing i'm asking is for this court to bring some meaningful patent prosecution to one on one that's all if i remember right judge hughes you yourself last time was here  irvine actually you asked the solicitor is it possible for examiners to print for evidence and want to when cases to the extent of evidence requirements crossover to one twelve went to two and one or three and mr kelly said absolutely honor and i actually agree with that it's not going to be they're not going to be doing it by let's say citing various cases or the same various patents because sometimes patents are never or never even brought into actual  reduction of practice but there's things like textbooks for things like dictionaries there's a lot of things an exam or can can look at to establish whether something's well known retaining conventual or whether something is abstract and in this case if the exam or sit there and let's even talk in my mind a show well things like dictionary of real estate terms if you go to we have evidence showing that we had actual reduction to practice going back to two thousand and three well known or i just there is a dispute it's in the record your honor i say there's no evidence to prove it or no evidence to support it i mean there's zero or actually there's one thing finally on rehearing on here your contention is then he does the appraisal but let's just say that the same appraiser kept an appraisal our current appraisal which means he has gone about every three months for every house he's ever doing and so he always has a current appraisal somebody comes up to him and says i need an appraisal for this house now for other i first saw this technology took about two seconds for an a t m instead of taking two seconds we go down to microseconds we can produce from seconds to microseconds depending on that i don't look any claim or at least one of the clients when i look at fifty seven what your honor that's just absolutely perfect how can you argue that look there's two ways to do it you can preprocess it and store it and or you can produce it at the time it's requested and if it's produced at the time requested you're going to take that processing time to perform it whether then you're rather just take something out of a database which is literally these days nothing more than microsoft that's not contest if you're using general purpose computers here and so the inventor of concept here is doing this in a matter microsecond you know your honor i'm saying that the so i'm just trying to understand so the incentive concept is where we're not dealing with a d m so everybody has the ability to get the a t m down and everybody anybody could go in to get an updated so the advent of concept is the maintenance sometimes a that's a supreme court said something substantially more it's a little confusing i understand that but it seems to me especially in light of her kind of murder and an eight tricks is that something more it means that there's an ordered combination has never been there before where you want to call that inventive you know i guess that would be inventive so but if you can say that something in the additional limitations as an order combination were not well known routine and conventional which is a higher standard and what is it could you just i mean i know you'd like to kill a before but i'm just really missing the point what is what is the something more that you've created here keeping it to date without a query one of several recreate and again if you have a database  understand the distribution of housing values and a certain neighborhood let's say there's a thousand houses now if you want to do this let's say just an a v m an online two seconds per going to take you fifteen to thirty minutes to produce a map you have those an updated the advantages you can get in a v m value far quicker than with previous technology that's one advantage and they claim limitations go to that advantage the board in the examiner here properly conducted that alice faced one on one in court you conclude that these claims you not recite a patent eligible invention under step one the exam on the board did exactly what alice did what mayo did what this court has done step two analysis what must happen is the board the examiner the p t o has to look at the claims of the claim limitations individually collectively and decide what are we doing with the abstract idea so here the abstract idea is some combination of the algorithm which is unto itself abstract and the algorithm is estimating the value property which is a fundamental economic practice so when we look at claim fifty seven the board in the examiner has to say what are we using how are we implementing the abstract idea are we just using generic computer components to execute it as a tool of the abstract idea or are we doing something else where the limitations individually or collectively are improving the computer technology so for example i think your friend and i want to put words in his i think what his instruction or his analysis would include the abstract idea in other words was it conventional to apply this to your computer to this idea and keep  values up to date updated so that they're available immediately well it can't be that the something substantially more is the abstract idea i mean it has to be that the other components in a in a computer implemented invention it has to be that computer implementation is doing something other than just executing the abstract idea so in this particular instance if the purported advance is this reduction in lead see this reduction in the amount of time that it takes to provide a user when he or she asks for the estimated value to get we asked how is the claim providing that benefit and how here is using computers to do our computers do there's nothing in this claim that identifies anything other than generic computer equipment his request for rehearing acknowledged that to be the case at appendix twenty he's using generic computers to implement the abstract page twenty the appendix page seven forty three which is the specification at paragraphs twenty to twenty three say you can use a portable computer you can use a phone i don't care you can use whatever's the next sentence identifies paragraphs twenty and twenty one of the specification which i just pointed to that person computer can be used at the terminal or the server and there's nothing in this specification with the use conventional computers to do something go to a one of three issue or even the decision that it had been shown doesn't answer the want to one inquiry the supreme court as early as d or categorically said these are different concepts one o one and one zero two are not answering the same question they reiterated that in may when the supreme court rejected the government's position that in fact we should dress these issues under one of two and one of three not one but doing different lifting and again it goes back to the question that were answering isn't it was this disclosed in a particular reference or would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art we're concerned more fundamentally with what is the claim doing and at some level for example and for climber what in the specification has the application identified as its invention concept that fundamentally is what the alice inquiry is about it's about figuring out whether this is more than just the abstract idea of generic computer but something more so to contrast claims and alice which are like the claims here generic computer implementation about tricked ideas you have and fish and fish is a great example it was a claim to a database but not just a generic database that was to a self referential database that improve the functionality of the computer we don't have an improvement in computer functionality here what we have is computers doing what they do run algorithms store algorithms update algorithms display algorithms that's what computers do there's nothing in this explainer position just to clarify that this pre processing is something that computers and other data like and lookup tables and things like well as my friend said you sort of have two choices you can either run the algorithm before somebody asks or you can wait till they ask here if he's built into his claim doing before i'm going to run it before they ask and his position is that by using the computer to do what computers do before somebody asks i reduce the time it takes for me to provide that data to the user mean leaving aside that none of these claims actually have a time component in terms of how because the claims don't even require there's no actual user request component in claim fifty seven for true your honor i guess the system contemplates that a user might request but the system doesn't actually require that he or she did so but you're right the limitation is expressly incorporated there but then we get back to the point and the board made this point in its initial at appendix page thirty four this is the third full paragraph at the bottom of that page where they address the anus argument that the claims are not abstract and patent eligible because the combination is unconventional and represents an improvement in technology by creating a faster process but the exam board agreed with the examiner and this is the point we've made in our brief and i'm making out this is quote claims being performed on a general purpose computer and the appellants have not persuasively argue that the application of a mathematical algorithm to a general computer represents a technological improvement if there is a reduction in latency it's using computers to do what they do and there are multiple decisions from this court including for sata which say that simply using computers to do something faster or more efficient is not ren your claim something substantially more intercepted i'm not depending on a computer i realise you know computers do very few things actually in reality there's a control structure machines however it's what you do with those instructions and it was acknowledged and then fish that software improvements can be done through software and that's exactly what i've done here that's exactly what they commit my client has done here and i never argue th computer database it didn't use a computer to ron some kind of business map and more efficiently well it's again still if it's what you call is a business method or a technical improvement you can you point to any case where we've decided that an abstract idea performed on it is cotton eligible just because the computer makes it more efficient or faster or quicker or even possible there are some business methods that w your honor i've never made that argument never have i made that argument just because it's running on a computer my argument comes to the preprocessing and keeping a data keeping and maintaining a database of current a b m values that's what i still just warring collecting trading technologies that was nothing more than rearranging and displaying data and when it comes to even make robey bandai you're just sitting there taking data processing data and display it in the form of an animation and happens all the time you under step two we have a technical advantage there is the undisputed technical advantage that has nothing to do with just because it's on a computer well could you just articulate in one sentence mean what the technological advantage is being able to provide a b m s to user faster and i guess you something i mean i understand what you're saying one of the concerns i have that you being able data and it is inherent i don't have to describe every advantage possible within the specification but the point is it's just as inherent just for example if you are process data you certainly need to collect data at a time something that you can assume are just going to be in here and and other things you say ok if i have something pre processed and i can store it away by gosh when i'm providing it to a user upon request i don't have to process it i can just take it from memory i've saved that two seconds of processing again there's amazing study done by amazon who found that they lost one percent of business for every one hundred milliseconds of delay online that's why amazon has the fastest systems out there so little delay and they