morning i will direct commentary to the two fundamental errors in the board's analysis of the animal subject matter decision in the case below first the board's and appropriately and over simpl definition of the abstract concept to which the claims are purportedly direct and the court holding or forgive me the board holding that the claims and issue in this c p m proceeding were directed to the abstract concept of processing an application proper step to alice analysis by deliberately and explicitly failing to consider the ordered combination of the claims in analyzing step two and i've given up on the stop of question  in that case with regard to shaw the issue was addressed i would submit in dicta as to how a stoppel under section three fifty then again would apply but was not an issue in that case that was a question of same language of a different section what's your basis for or even those two different sections that have a different interpretation even if we were to assume that that section three fifteen definitively states the binding lot on the application of a stop on to section three fifteen i would submit that there are distinctions between i p r proceedings and c b s excuse me c b s proceedings that would justify a different outcome of that one of the different distinctions  being first of all that the scope of the proceeding you've got a rather narrow proceeding in i p r and it's open any member of the public who can make a petition and raise a case just a handful of defenses that are available s category who can bring proceedings you've got a more narrowly constrained group of patents that are subject but most importantly got a very broad set of defenses and the concept and the thinking of congress as reflected register remarks said in our briefs indicates this was my hope that all of that affect the application of the stock on your honor it you're giving us kind of like structural differences between the two types of procedures but with respect to a stop on the what difference do those differences distinctions if you're pointing out what difference does that make to the application of a stop the difference your honor is that the regime that exists now based on the board interpretation of the a three twenty five a stop will in this case would essentially allow for perpetual petitions one after another picking one claim perhaps relying on a new intervening case a new piece of art that's found and there's never any end to it and the point has been made that three twenty five d a stop all could be invoked upon the discretion of the patent office that didn't happen in this case and the fact of the matter is this was supposed to be in a snapple as a matter of right not out of the differences that you're talking about support a different interpretation of identical i would join the this action in the context of a patent owner who is seeking to enforce their patent rights against a is no such protection under c b s and that's what allows one after another petition to be filed in this case it's too hypothetically it could be one for every claim in the past and it could go on for many many many years that protection doesn't exist in the essence they did the basis that we advocate here assuming that you apply the same instruction to that the terms it's just as in claim construction it's the same word appears in multiple places in the claim it's presumed to have the same meeting but that rebutted based on evidence that something else was meant to occur something else and what and what case involving statutory construction has the supreme court or example given different meanings to identical language in the same statute i can cite a case that it's the description you just gave your honor and i would suggest these are in fact different statutes so these are different statutory provisions again if decision to institute just run of the mill ordinary dispute first and foremost your honor that there is no challenge in this appeal to the the decision to institute g b m review the facts that prevent present the basis for our argument and there's under three twenty five the one for stop all came into existence after the institution decision was triggered by the issuance of the final decision in the first c b s proceeding so we don't challenge the fact that stoppel wasn't was in effect at the institution stage this is an appeal of the final written decision in the c b m this is an appeal of the board's denial of our motion to terminate the proceeding whether emotions to a man motion to supplement the record such as in the readline detection case the fact that there is not explicit reference in the final written decision to this issue of a stoppel does not occur in the situation like this s had been issued at that time the argument would have been that the board was barred from instituting review but this particular statute doesn't even mention institution it prohibits the request or the maintenance of those quote less closely related to the institution decision or i would submit questions of jurisdiction where the proper parties to appreciating of this nature but as a factual matter there is no appeal in this case of the institution decision and therefore the holding of cause would not apply  the board says it's the abstract concept of processing an application for financing a purchase and in so doing acknowledged that there are multiple limitations in the claims  acknowledge that there may be evidence that some of these are not routine but explicitly help with respect to the union rated elements things like the servers on which processing is occurring databases user terminals zero two game twenty five delineates for the reader the various computer components that are linked together so that the information from these sources can be compiled first the user terminal where information regarding the purchasers capability to buy is input  this is column fifteen of the  a user terminal full stop is it is a generic item it's got a specific application here and again and the the point that i making in this appeal is not necessarily that every one of the financial information a server that has access to databases and then a server a server generating a financial package for each product and this is a system for generating financial package on the other side comes out a financial package and that's ok but as long as you show only in the claims how that financial package is generated and i think that's what i don't see think that i think that putting together financial information is an abstract idea and i think that's where you start with you gather information you collected from ation and tell me that because you put it into a computer outside comes a financial package i think that's precisely step one of the one zero one inquiry are the claims directed to in shrek idea if you gave me more than what you pointed out then i would say well yes perhaps or yes it does but i don't see how anything in the claim that tells me how the financial package generated because of that i see this claim as being aspirational i understand your honor and in this discussion we continue to focus on only one of the many plain limitations they revoke saying the generation whether we're a claim in the patent that describes the precise manner in which the manipulation of data that's the problem here doesn't exist and i again i submit your honor that's not required to support at an ability what what we have here is a method as recited in the claims whether you claim ten twenty five or fourteen the independent claims here that is contrasted to methods used in the prior art that were different and page eight three nine five in the background the prior art techniques for performing art of financing are described it's an interactive method information taken manually sent to banks compiled the have to go back again if there's a change in data you have to go back again if there's a change in the desired purchase what is not in this record is any evidence that a method that combines these three electronic data sources electronically automates the process of at one time calculating a finance package for every item in taking the user's purchasing ability information combining that with the lending ability of the of the creditor and generating this comprehensive report such that the customers and the dealers can look and pick from th choices that this computer system has generated to select the most attractive financing application that is narrow or decidedly narrower than the concept of processing an application all stuff and it's not something that has been any showing generic computer systems and i think is different as you were pointing out that the generic computer components here don't do anything different or extra additional as this court's cases have discussed that quite right that it doesn't discuss how that is done and the reason why that's a problem under one of one analysis is that really describes the preemption risk that you have here because you have an abstract idea and claim is meant to capture what claim all types of financial package generation matter how you get in that is a problem and so we believe of course the final written decision itself that they not only consider the individual elements that are focused on but but all of the elements and all the combination and what doesn't appear in in feces papers and in the argument here is well ok so let's say you're taking issue with how they resolve that water combination issue but what is it what is it what is the extra that they were combination provides that was not you know that would take it out that would give you the something more that's required to bring it patentable subject matter and there the answer is there really isn't anything it's that you know that the computer components that are in these claims are all just generic computer components there's nothing special about them statutory limits of more its ability to over the courts ability to review decisions and i think i don't want to prejudice that case here i think office every statute for this in the second if you could ask the board i mean if that has all the time it could be in front of the board file as it went down here a motion to terminate because a stop will now plies because a final decision has come out with respect to i mean you've given us a statutory interpretation by making this presidential but i think i mean i think the fact that it's presidential is just to help you with the consistency at the board just as you know when this court goes on interpretation of the board somehow become in conflict with with this court's interpretation of a stop of the presidential manner that on this particular case it's your declaration that this is a rule that we now establish with respect to a stop all in the review ability of these these cases of these decisions why could we not review that well it's not a rule in terms of the review ability of it it's a rule it's eight presidential opinion for the in his remarks counsel for westlake pointed out the fact that the the board in this case was not starting from a blank slate that there had been a previous e b m decision and counts correct in that regard and that's noteworthy to t well because in that prior c b i the court looked at the claims that are instituted in the c p m and concluded in their in their a institution decision where they declined to review the claims under want to whine that those claims did not preempt all applications of the method of processing an application for financing and they stated that that was a matter of fact and it's a five three that facts can have changed between then and now the board took a different view of the law in their second decision but it it underscores my point that the claims read as a collective whole in this case don't cramp the abstract concept that the board stated these claims are directed to there is room for others to practice and for others perhaps even to to patent in the face of this these claims they don't invoke the concern about preemption that allison mayo and bill ski and many of the decisions of this court as recently as as the court in the bascom step to put me in the l a step to analysis did not consider the ordered combination and west likes brief to this court on page forty eight essentially admits as much when it in holding that each element was not an inventive concept that peter had held that the overall invention was not eligible there was never a consideration or a holding that the overall invention that this combination of steps and claims and fourteen twenty five and all the other edition was not inventive on the contrary a j twenty eight in the ports decision they declined to consider the evidence that we put forward to show that these things were invented or conventional or not routine i see my time is up your honor and i