right the next case before the court is visual memory versus the video for one six two two five four feel from the district court of the district of delaware which improves computers performance and they're not types using a generic computer as a tool to carry out a task the district court overgeneralized over simplified the claims when deciding and videos will be six motion but that's defined by the computer based on they have a processor that determines what type of data without the code or non code gets stored in the cache and when you look at the specification which criticizes  art calling to begin at one thirty nine going through one fifty six one of the problems with these prior memory systems is they were designed for a specific phrases of a processor or a family of processors and when that memory system was installed in a computer that that did not have the ideal processor for which it was me design trade offs occurred and memory access time was reduced so what claim one allows is one memory system that can be installed with multiple processors where it uses the programmable operational characteristic to determine whether for example instructions which would be code for operands non code gets stored in the cache so just to fractions one years into your position which are very different from claim one claim six requires the memory system having a programmable operational characteristic divine through configuration by the computer based on the type of process to determine what they put data again for example code or non code is stored in the memory and also requires open page to bias the specification explains that this increased system performance at column five lines twenty to thirty claim eight requires a memory system that has a plurality of ca is three different program law personal characteristics based on characteristics of the processor which the finds requirements about to caches and then the memory system store data this again improved system performance and that improvement is is also about how the claim to solution improves upon the prior art all of this was ignored by the district court is it your position that that these claims are directed to something that's not abstract and therefore this would fall within that that type of analysis done in and fish or is it your claim that there's something new and novel that's added and that we're talking about a step to both and fish and in fish has a specific algorithm in it that says use this for the database and it will improve operations i can point to and see in the  this tells me how you programmed it to come up with a better function of that or a computer like in fish it's your honor kong for like thirty to forty three explains how the internal cache can all of this it's not on a patent or a specification i write all of those words are difficult so you need to explain to me how what that's telling me how the computer is operating differently ok so you know the way it's operating differently flexible system and can be programmed in different ways but it doesn't tell me how i mean the idea that you can just program something in different ways to me seems relatively abstract the c d o code  the preferred embodiment that would teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to do it now whether you're saying that the claim could be overbroad to a point that is invalid or some prior art that's for another day that records not before us but as for whether teach is one of ordinary skill in the art what a sixteen the first two paragraphs is directed to the idea of having a processor based on a different type of processor it will dictate how the memory operations including whether it's going to store code or knowing exactly so it's not as simple we don't think there's any way that these claims well in compas the idea of putting a book on a library shelf as they just report said we still don't understand that analogy when you look at all the different elements of the claims from sixteen clinic in particular have all these requirements as to column five regarding the three eighty six and four eighty six processors and in column six it says the invention nor is the invention limited to applications applying to three eighty six or forty six so that helps the claims not at all he pointed to problem and not really a one to one question well seems to me were collapsing all of these cases into want to whine when they don't really belong here you know it's your your question is an excellent one your honor but the reason it isn't is because the focus should be on the claims of course red light just because the plane may cover a preferred body meant that list details that's very distinct from end fish for example the in fish gave us to have what's missing from this patent is the how the reason in fish provided so you're saying that want to one now becomes a written description or enablement no your honor no your honor what i'm saying is that because and fish interpreted the claim correctly as a one twelve six limitation they then read in a four step algorithm if if there was some basis such here if our job is to say what is the claim directed to you then we are supposed to read the claim and response to read the claim in light of the specification absolutely right but that's but that but that's different then but if there's an embodiment in the specification and i can't read this he either but if there's an embodiment of the specifications that i actually is and you memory structure and it tell if you found it create it why isn't that with the reason it's not your honour's because that's not what's being claimed instead what we've got is a detailed proposal c d o listing that that the based on our understanding doesn't have those but regardless is disclaimed by the specification as analysis here requires us to go through those two steps and just because we have a claim that the computer operation is being improved alice itself says that that's no basis to grant patent eligibility so so the  fact that's not what alice alice alice says it's all you're doing is claiming that a computer that will be programmed to do a person thing if what it's doing is abstract and abstract idea then that's not enough but that's not what they're what it is what they're claiming here your honor what i what i understood and read alice to say is that it doesn't make patent eligible any pattern which just purports to improve the functioning of a computer and that's what we have here just because we have an  as it says even though alice was about a business method it was computerized that just because you claim it improves the computer doesn't make it past knowledgeable here your honor if you look at what's being claimed what's being claimed is a prior art sequence of generic computer elements no dispute about that and then we have this programmable operational characteristics not really defined but if you look at column two what it says is in the past most computer systems have been designed on the basis of a particular type of close processor and in fact that's exactly in their brief they say in the past that page fifteen most memory systems were designed for use with a specific microprocessor or perhaps a family so that the legit invent this programmable operational characteristic what it does is described in the patent in the brief as part of what was no so then the question is where is the potential arguable inventive step here it's in the programmable operational characteristics what tells us nothing to go on and how to go about doing specification it sounds the way you know you're right in the past a particular memory might store particular data to work with a particular processor but here they're going to have a memory that can move with multiple different kinds of processors and so the idea is that this program characteristics will indicate how the memory supposed to work for a particular type of processor y is proving that the memory or the computer system as a whole yet that's the reason your honor is because the not telling us how to go about it so you know again it's like the capital one case we have an interactive interface but there was no explanation of how to go about doing things one of ordinary skelly or doesn't know how to make go about doing it yes your honor i  say one twelve because because we have to look to the claim to determine whether there is something here that's inventive that's being added and if all the being added is a black box functional step that doesn't go about describing the how then we're in the same place says righty of cases including dealer track which says you have to specify how the hardware is programmed to perform the step but those cases like dealer try her hold on an idea as i said data storage that's a broad idea that's what the district court found we believe that's correct and then if you could can you explain that sure i mean that i do have to say that i was a little perplexed by this the concept of that it's like putting a book on a library well so what it's what it's what it's like your honour's it's saying that there's there's there they provide two categories of data code which is computer instructions and both coded non code which means everything and then there's the other description i think you  the preamble was limited to the data no argument about that below that would be a claim construction issue but regardless the claims talked about also data that comes from the bus master and data that comes from everything so we have two specific  dealing with two types of data and all it saying your honor is we're going to put one of those two categories in a place that's more convenient and will operate more efficiently so while the court for example may have a book of the courts rules and it may have that on a book idea is to drive children from one location to another no your honor this is saying on the front end that we're going to put data in place a or place b what are we going to do that based on doesn't say we're going to put in place and says we're going to create a system that will allow data transfers through a precise type of mechanism and do it in a way that that the processor was never capable of doing before your honor i disagree it's not telling us what the precise type of mechanism is and that's the distinction here within fiction so what it's telling us is we're going to create a system that puts data in place a place b and that will be based on this undefined program operational characteristics and i would like to briefly take issue with the discussion regarding claim eight and six but we're happy to discuss that but you know the court was pretty clear in electric power whether a meaningful argument was presented for distinctive significance and contract extraction talked about whether the patent t focused on defending the representative claim here we have fifty eight pages into briefs with one page in the main brief into two paragraphs in the reply brief focused on the dependent claims there's no argument that any additional conventional elements impart inventiveness and there's no arguments that the claims are different in any manner material to the want to one increase there's just three sentences for example regarding claim eight that are repeated that merely a has additional cash is nothing new or different about that and then it says claim it has three program a lot of racial characteristics again those are just three undefined functional boxes that tell us we're going to store memory and one of so low it was argued principly on a representative claim that was the majority argument but we also separately preserved in our view would each of the claims separately and if you look at the appendix it sixteen to seventeen you'll see the district court's description in going through those claims independently what i would submit your honor is that it hasn't been preserved feel and it certainly hasn't been argued separately regardless i'm happy to talk about those independent claims in the three sentences that are provided as the basis as i said they're more specific in that they claim different memory systems that's just those conventional memories main memory plurality caches there's a discussion of registers which i would submit haven't become any more nonconventional since benson  evaluated registers in one thousand nine hundred seventy two and then there is this fast page and first page technique that counsel reference which is nothing more than a pointer again there are known techniques for pulling up the most recently access data the whole key here according to this patent is how do you do that and the way that the patent says you do that is based on the programmable operational characteristics and as the court recognized there's no description of how there's no description for example of the rules that were set forth in the claims that make row which went through these detailed descriptions of the mathematical basis on which you're going to provide facial animations as opposed to the subjective basis that were used by individuals beforehand and there's certainly no description of technology that's comparable to bass com here that council doesn't even claim that we have nonconventional and non generic arrangement of known conventional parts all we have is a sequence of known conventional memory pieces and then we're saying the system is going to allocate what type of data goes into which memory area based on a programmable operational characteristic what the court did your honor is at the very start of the claim destruction argument judge andrews district court asked three times not once not twice three times whether there was any claim construction proposed for that term counsel at the beginning and claimed construction garbologist of the want to one argument i apologize or on this folks asked three times and then again at the end of the argument he literally said look in the hour that you've had to think about it do you have anything that you want to propose for construing this claim and counsel said no we just are saying that we're not sure what it means but it may mean something in the c d s only have some reference to it i would submit that to the extent claim construction is relevant to  burden of the patentee to at least identify what the claimed term isn't a proposed construction that may make a difference in the eligibility analysis but here that wasn't done and i don't think it would make a difference respectfully the the district court correctly applied to step analysis here the term in the focus of the invention was retrieving and receiving and storing data by the category of data he then found that the additional limitations in the claims didn't add anything innovative they were generic computer components cache main memory bus processor and some registers described in less detail than those found ineligible invents and they then describe your alleged improvement in the conventional use of conventional components is something software related then the claim has to somehow be limited to what that software is and here all we have is processor and that it's going to impact the memory in that type data and that the memory stores why isn't that enough to see because what we would need after that for the sort of decisional rules for example that were set out in the claim in micro we need some any time it's functional you have to have very specific narrow even if it improves the computer you have to very specific narrowing structures on how it's performing well i guess what i would say your honor is you need something more than just bare functional description so you can get the chords or it decided take a software brain and just say the software brain is going to make this analysis and going to come up with the result that's most efficient or best you need question that's not right but that will be sixty age when cite a motion to dismiss for invalidity on the one on one for one in response to the argument that he really want the ball and to enforce you have to play all the functional elements into the claim that explains how separating the functionality cache in other words where code and non food get store is a benefit and then why isn't that just saying based on the processor type we're going to do it differently i don't fully understand the question on you what it's throughout this it seems to me that what you're saying is we have a flexible system and based upon the processor use we're going to program it differently to achieve the best results it doesn't tell me what kind of things processor whether be a three eighty six three six s x or forty six those are three different types of processor that require different items for the memory system in order to function efficiently now my colleague said that visual memory did not make the statement that the components operate in an unconventional manner that's false requiring that page fourteen physically says quote when so these ask the court to construe claim one to necessarily include the information comes in so we actually raise the same argument that we raise with your honors today that's in the appendix at a p x zero four five one is where rising and that's not true throughout this district were briefing we did argue just like we did here that there are differences and but it isn't true you only dedicated one or two sentences to it you know that's not true we have sensors throughout the to also have different sections for each and both the opening reply there's a section related to your representative claim but also sprinkled throughout your arguments dealing with step one step two are arguments that claims one six and