bases and reason for that is as in the cardio case the two hundred and thirty seven isn't directed at a particular result but to specific means that improve cardiac monitoring systems the claims are not written in correct they deal with the information coming from monitoring instruments correct but they're dealing with exactly how to process information medical professionals will actually have within a larger monitoring system well this is judged the challenge that you have i understand you want to rely on this court's recent cardio net opinion but the challenge if you do have is that we have a lot of opinions from this court that talk about different forms of collecting data comparing data to another threshold and reminiscent of those cases and so i think that's what you have to also deal with rather than just saying well this is a cargo net patent and we've already ruled that and different cardio net patent is pattern eligible understood and the fundamental difference between those cases you reference like electric power and the rest is they did or they missed exactly what the pa have which is they they had broad functional results oriented language collect analyze and display and the court said for instance in electric power that th analyzed left to the question of how to analyze but the two hundred and thirty seven dollars patent does exactly that it spells out in the claims how to carry out the process it starts way taking the information categorizing it by event by time and then give it incorporates the ninety four dollars terms of doing the noise but this is judged and again i was thinking about that and trying to understand what does that mean that you determine measure of merit based on severity of the event and the amount of noise in the information is that just trying to figure out what's the magnitude in the signal that is indicative of a possible cardiac event the depending on on the event the severity of the event is would you would want to look at the degree of magnitude in a given moment of time across a period of time is there something that i'm missing i don't i don't think so for that component but again doctor you're saying doctors and technicians were never doing that they were not i had the magnitude of of a given event during a certain time period so i think that's i think that encompasses broadly speaking part of what medical professionals are doing when they're looking at at it but we're talking about a process that is incorporating a variety of different pieces and right and they were and it was already known that noise existed in these kinds of signals not only noise that's generated by the devices and already things that people had always been doing when they were making assessments as to interpret the meaning of these collected electrocardiogram sick signal there are aspects of things that that it occurred but but there's been no no one has put all these pieces together into the claims and what is what is here so what's your hook what's what's distinctive that you can say all right here's our inventive contribution to society where we had vance the technological are putting it into categorizing the by putting a system together where you can set it up so that it has a system that goes by event time puts those two together and then transmits it to a remote location for the process and so it's all of those combined together in a claim that is that is the invention and the only thing that that the specification points to call into that happened previously is either you had continuous review or you had batch handling those those are the only two things that are happening and so what you have now with this system is one in which you're not straddled with either having someone continuously monitoring the data or you have someone has back channeling where they put it all together and eventually you'll get it some point let me give you let me give you a hypothetical what if i'm a doctor and i'm a very busy person and i'm dealing with a lot of patients and it's really important that i have excellent monitoring of a certain patient is having you know that risk of serious cardiac events but i can't spend all my time constantly looking at  physiological information that's coming off of his monitor monitoring system so i hire some student interns and i tell those student interns you guys are going to be my st rough cut of all of this physiological information that this patient monitoring system is spinning out and here a couple after abuse i want you to look for when you're reading through all of the data and if you find that combination of after do i want you to tell me i want you to send that to me but if you don't see it then i don't want to see any reports on that so just send me the reports on the the information from the monitoring system that meets certain attributes do you think that method which is selectively transmitting information coming off of the monitoring system to me based on other people and presenting to the doctor the sections of the just the good stuff i don't want the irrelevant stuff just tell me when something important and relevant happens and that's based on a few attributes that i if it's not known previously that is there's there's nothing in that shows that it's done before i think it would be patton eligible the idea that you could come up with a process of doing it but it sounds a lot like continuous or some form of continuous stuff but doing all probably we disagree with the court in that case but we plan to preserve our arguments we recognize that it's now controlling precedent and i won't be arguing that there is a material difference between this case in the next case to be well your honor in part yes and here's why obviously if the court affirms in the next case to be argued that would dictate know i was clearing my throat apologize if that decision may be instructive if the court comes to a different conclusion but it is not necessarily dispositive because the only thing that the district court addressed in the case that we are talking about if you take a look at the measure of my calculation in this case what the claims described are basically using two basic inputs noise and severity then combining them into a single score in order to classify and transmit already detected cardiac and it's just three simple boxes that's it that is an abstract idea to the judge chances point that it is capable of being performed by humans were gone most of whether it actually has been and and the claims calling for that calculation that very simple algorithm to be performed with computer components even accounting for the ordered combination of the claims at that's the only add speed to that process and that's why i come back to electric power which teaches that man which directs that manipulation of information to provide a humanly comprehensible amount of information useful to users does not by itself transform the otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis into a patent eligible concept mr can so yes because this is dutch and i'd like you to really focus on what we said in the cardio net opinion as to the two of seven pat i mean in that case design understand that we found that was an  improvement monitoring technology for atrial fibrillation events and we said that was what was claimed there was an improved device that more accurately detected such events by by detecting the variance in b to be timing caused by premature ventricular be in that sense one could look at that invention as being a filtering process a data processing filtering process where you recognize there are certain things that aren't actually atrial fibrillation events and so you want to discard that and so on a certain level that's starting to sound a little bit like what's going on here itself as i read this court's opinion it's all the two of seven claims in that case as trying to solve a problem recognizing a pattern demonstrating atrial fibrillation in the presence of ventricular bea between the process to secure that problem so the court described those claims as within the class of claims that focus on an improvement in computers and as tools rather than those that merely collect electronic information display and more in body mental process the two hundred and thirty seven claims are very different and here's why they deal only with data comprised of already detected events and simply select which of those characterize those events for review whereas in this court's decision with the tools seven pat one hundred and ninety one thousand one hundred and forty nine that was an improvement to protecting events itself it made the technology more accurate we don't have that here with the and thirty seven claims noise and severity or just assign values combined into a single score and then classified on that score that's not a technical solution it's computerizing what amounts to a fairly simple algorithm and i would direct the court attention in terms of analyzing this this judge chen your question to tables three and four of the patent they confirm that that's it appends x one hundred and thirty four in columns nine and ten and also the discussion around they're just taking the biological signal the claims are just taking the biological signal and scoring it and organizing it based on that score and just to take that point a little bit latter category of of filtering and organizing data so hopefully i honored your answer your honor's question on on that point basically this is using conventional computer components to perform consensual activities just using the e c g signal as an input so affirming that the asserted claims of the two hundred and thirty seven pattern here are abstract that alice step one and frankly it  actually i would submit that that the nd category the ones that scott cares citing are judge chen's words i think you used the term reminiscent of this case is reminiscent of those cases like electric power and cyber phone the other cases that's got that excuse the sites too are very different in that they tell how to implement the invention in a very specific way to improve specific technology issue in electric power in terms of of parallels and collector path power is particularly on point that involves a quote composite indicator of reliability drawing on several data and versus t c l is also instructive it relied on the clean language to conclude that automating a process involving controlling access to resources is an abstract idea because it can be done by the human mind and i think what you have with the two hundred and thirty seven dollars claims here is very similar it's categorizing and sorting arrhythmia events based on relevance and that's exactly the sort of process that can be performed by the human mind and that's a decision this court can make on the intrinsic evidence just looking at the path so take a few minutes and talk a little bit about alice stuff to it in its brief  suggests that the district court skipped over that process and didn't give any credit to the measure and that's simply not correct the district court specifically pointed out cardio nets argument that the claim show inventive concept by creating a combined measurement of severity of adverse cardiac events together with the signal noise level to automatically identify less clinically significant events that's that's an appendix users that specific machine so that the filtering couldn't be hijacked locally that involved an event of concept an interplay of the processes between the remote server still train system and the identification of the specific user at a local machine and this cause the abstract idea of collecting classifying and transmitting data to be performed using conventional technology so the district court was certainly correct and in determining that the measure of maurice did not express an inventive concept  said that even assuming that the collection of elements lead to a more efficient way of controlling access or precedent is very clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on than it is to anything that's been cited by cardio net and its priests and it's a simple algorithm that that can be performed by a human when you actually dig down into the patent and look at the intrinsic evidence thank you thank you council on this tomorrow address the rest of the claim language says wherein it is a combination of the severity of the event and the noise with respect to the noise aspect returning once again to judge  of that term in the one dollar to one dollar area there's no there's no sense in which determining noise is a conventional thing much less a combined measure of the severity and the noise within the processes laid out in the clans and  broadly categorizing is collecting analyzing data the particular steps laid out a particular means as the court put it in the crow and there's particular configuration so whether you do it at step one or step two what you have is two a seven thank you thank you counsel we have your arguments in the cases submitted