alice that one it was error for the district court to disregard the specification in finding that the claims are directed to an abstract idea when the specification specifically identify how the claimed invention improves cardio monitoring systems and provides advantages over the prior art and this includes advantages such as accuracy clinical value and so on identify improvement over the prior art the specification does do so and when you look at the claims themselves they actually go to the exact invention here this is taking machine identified fibrillation or arrhythmia events having human assessment of a subset of those inventions finding a correlation or the necessary correlations between those two sets of data and then generating a very very specific arrhythmia so here what we're talking about is an entire system that involves pulling data from a cardio cardiac monitoring device together with what's happening happening at the central monitoring station but there is a train technician reviewing that data and then pulling all that information together specifically to present it in a very specific manner so that the doctor can find it useful and be able to properly treat their patients the specification claims that this nothing there that that shows that this is a longstanding practice much less so the type of overwhelming evidence that the recent federal circuit decision cardio net requires in order for something to be recognized as a long invention to the level of just passing information back and forth then that particular idea would be problematic but that's not the claims here are directed to and in particular you have to account for every single element in these not any needs trying to preempt an entire way of passing data that back and forth we're not even saying we're trying to do that in the cardiac monitoring field this is a very specific set of claims directed to an invention that has already been proven to  and then in addition have a person review that report of arrhythmia events from the monitoring system to make his or her own independent  way of detecting arrhythmia events by inserting a human being to take a look at that report out and and fine tuning that report out by providing his or her not eligible patent invention because what i'm not seeing here is the software innovation that's required ok fine correlation and so forth so where where your claim you pick a claim and then show me where in your claim you've got something that distinguishes that claim from my hypothetical such that i can feel like this is not just an abstract idea but this note that you know obviously this one is limited to a specific type of event atrial fibrillation event and then you also have a monitoring station for receiving that data so if we get past that we get to the next element which is a processing system which is configured to receive this information and so even if you assume for now that everything before this is abstract you get to a very particular situation here where you take this data and then you receive a human assessment of a subset of this machine identified event and in the next element you're pictographic we presenting all of that assess and combine data and you're doing it in a very and specification says that being able to present all of this data together has a very important clinical value to tick reasons you know doctors now for the st time can look at the data in the record that this has led to significant improvement in terms of therapy particularly for an electronic cardiac monitoring system we have so much data that's coming in over twenty four hours over the here ration of a week or two you know this but in ven two your honor but i reserve that if possible unless you have any questions on step two right now what is the relationship you here this is what this is doing is scrubbing out irrelevant data is that the point no your honor well that's a part of it obviously one of the problems specifically with electronic cardiac monitoring devices is that they could have this part of facts noise that shouldn't be counted so having human assessment of a subset of it and then finding a correlation is important to make sure that the data that's being presented isn't just you know clouded by noise so that's one aspect of it certainly not all of it because then you have to take that data and actually presented in a way that's useful to the practitioners and the physicians for use and diagnosis and treatment and what is the point  doctor specific information about when in the day it's happening what else is going on with the heart rate at that time how to change it minute to minute hour to hour and not not being able to do that over the course of a week or two  below in plaintiff's opening claim construction brief which is not in the appendix but it's in the record at page twelve cardio net said quote the claims impose no limitations on how the information must be picked the graphically presented and would include i apologize to the point is there is absolutely absolutely incorrect to say that specific display is required expressly that was disclaimed now with regards to the monitoring system  common timescale so at least in this particular claim itself it's expressly explaining to you how these two sets of data should be displayed well it's all it's saying your honor and as i noted they say there's no limitation on how to do it but all they're saying is that you have to display it on a common timescale that's exactly the situation and trading technologies and electric power and if you look at the read brief pages thirty nine dollars to forty one dollars you can compare the graphs with electric power trading tech in the university of florida which were far more details included a common timescale and and were all found to be abstract and and in fact what we're doing here you're just chan to use your analogy is the data is coming in from the pacemaker or the prior art system it's going to be in turns which are the system it's then being spot checked by a nurse or some other cardio mission and then it's being displayed with as i noted no limitations on how that display is occurring other than in plain thirty one dollars a common time scale that laurie caught it the idea that you need to have evidence that something is conventional in the record to find it abstract that's not the case there's two ways to find abstraction one way is by a longstanding practice which cardio net says there's no evidence of but as we know in alice there was no evidence that the that the information there was a part of a longstanding practice and if you look at the  concurrence from this court's opinion which is which cites no record evidence because it was straightforward and known and if you look for example at the electric communication technologies case from a couple weeks ago it says  the fundamental business practice of providing advance notification of pickup and delivery or supplying customers with order numbers and customer information those were known despite the fact that there was no evidence and in capital one we the claim eleven was a new way of doing it so that doesn't impact the analysis the last point that i think is important for the court to consider is the procedural posture of this case particularly as compared to the two of seven appeal in this case albeit a motion on the police things that motion on the pleadings went up after fact discovery was complete not started complete after claim construction hearing not had started but was complete fully argued and  if you look at the transcript of the hearing on this motion you'll see the court asking questions about the interaction between the arguments presented by cardio net a claim construction and here and notably despite the fact that this is a twelve  that a cardio net had the opportunity to put in affidavits in fact they put one in that's not really germane jenny the issues before the court they had a full and complete evidentiary record should had they been able to identify any factual issue and then the court  have had to convert it to summary judgment so the procedural posture here is entirely different from the two of seven aside from the substantive differences that were pointed out by i believe judge dike of what was being claimed to be improved in the two  opposed to the mere display of information in this case but the court doesn't have any additional questions with regard to these straightforward patents that are focused purely on gathering information using conventional pacemakers  taking that information and identifying origine events using conventional technology having that being spot checked by a human and then picked a graphically displayed with absolutely no limitation whatsoever on how it should be displayed other than new arrangement is just as abstract as the claims and trading tech electric power and university of florida and no additional evidence is needed here anymore in those cases humans of long perform the activity were cited in the claims reviewing physiological data to identify events seeking nd opinions and graphing albeit with no limitation the data but even if these activities had been performed under the control control and precedent they remain abstract the eligibility ruling came on twelve c after discovery after claim construction and after cardio net amended its complaint three times the last time of which was after the want to one motion was already on file and even after all of that there are supplemental authority that is before the court so it is part of the record that was also a motion for judgment on the pleadings it was a motion where this court found that those two issues i said providing advance notification supplying customers order numbers and the like that those were longstanding practices that were abstract without evidentiary support for that and it then went on to say that the patent argued that because an abstract idea was unique that it was somehow different and the court there assumed that the techniques were brown breaking innovative but that that is not enough for eligibility and in so doing the court found be court found that the claims covered every potential solution to analyzing and displaying the data and in fact the actual claim says displaying the event analysis results that is not our situation here i know mr grant likes to summarize that  display but it's clear in every claim that the display has to be a very specific manner it has to meet every one of those elements and that's not the situation electric power even though electric power has figures that are very fancy and complicated none of that was in the  computer none of those cases apply here because as we had presented your honor we have a very specific and inventive way of doing so our case is more like data engine versus google where a method for navigating through spreadsheets  was found eligible and was applauded by the industry were also like the core wireless licensing versus l g electronics case where a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices with found to  eligible the claims were found to be high to a specific improvement over prior art systems and it improves the speed of the user's navigation so certainly there's precedent saying that it really depends on how specific your claims are but their eligibility