for the record and it just seems to me that it's quite excessive but in a crunch sound a lot of duplication in there is and you really need to do really need to give us this policy documents in order to help you in your case time to do to read through it through duplicative materials or things of that nature i understand your interest there are ten different judgments i believe so we want to be even though the record of each judgement repetitive we didn't want the court saying you didn't give us the record of this judgement so we can't rule on it so but i your your statement is well taken and will be here in the future your honor with respect to the four fifteen patent the the the claims in this patent cover a specific concrete device profile and specific methods for generating a specific concrete device profile it's an application that implement connection with digital image processing and take it comprises data but it's not mere data and that's of course that you're speaking i think specifically to claim one then the apparatus claims the method claims are somewhat of a different matter while you're just starting with  premise claims can you please me what your answer was to judge rayna again because a tag is just another form of data so i'm not sure how that helps you in any way so why why don't you even if you're right about that which i don't know you are but even if you are i don't know that help so tell me again what your answer was well i guess when when judge really said data i guess i'm interpreting that as some kind of an abstract concept or just some kind of collection of data first data for describing and then second data for describing so we go back to look at the device profile for describing then your claims go on and tell us that you're really just talking about data i think ultimately i think a digital image is is data something that's appended to a digital image claim a digital image you claim a device profile which has a first date of the describe some characteristics and secondly that this describes some characteristics those are just variables there when it's tagged to a digital image is part of the digital image or when it's not there's nothing in here about a digital image disclaims not a single claim in a patent uses words to join well the that are to do in the preamble but nobody's argued preamble i'm what the the district court acknowledged that a device profile can be a tag when you read the claims in view of the specification i think that's made clear it will even if you're right about that i don't understand how that helps you that's just the digital signal as opposed to simply a compilation of data it's it's not a digital signal like you do it's different i mean there are many claims there are many decisions from this court particular that make them patent eligible because they just look like databases i guess i don't know what's up in smoke at this point most of the jurisprudence at this point has to do with this mess is an abstract ideas this is a traditional field of pain talked about in the relevant parts generating one set of data generating a second set of data combining that you have the device profile and if you lose on the device profile what is generating data to come up an abstract concept but clearly the method describes some kind of process yes so at least in my view that seems to be within the broad parameters of what i want x or process there but it's still pretty up structed that it seems much more similar to avonlea which had to do with cats and processes there are many many arteries including this one they're not all value having and all of those cases are converting wave forms and what was at issue was you know the entire  build or the entire process you would be on good standing if you had claimed the process of improving the quality of digital images using certain kinds of data that's not what you claimed you claimed a method of simply profile so it's a method to to generate the device profile we turn around and say well what is a device profile and this data in the district court found that that was not because you you were claiming a naturist idea so now it seems to me that your method is directed to generating an abstract idea well i think for the first i would disagree with the district court's fin abstract idea if you if you start with the premise that a device profiles an abstract idea and then you say that well you're doing is generating an abstract idea it seems to me that you've answered your own question i think it would firstly if we agree that with a district court on the system court claim then are you saying that your method to play with would fall no no because when you look at a method claim or process claim you the asked whether it's an application even if you accepted which we respectfully disagree with that a device profiles an abstract idea the question is whether it's an application of an abstract idea and then you look to whether has meaningful limitations in the client and there are meaningful limitations in this claim it doesn't cover all device profiles it doesn't cover  which you don't have that which is good if you're generating a device profile and then later that device profile what the data is used into in specialized computer so that's where we stop i mean what is a bit t because the claims have to be read in light of the specification i think s k should make absolutely clear that this is part of the digital image processing system a human can do this with pen and paper a human can't do this in their mind it's way too complex it's and use the work computer the claims that wouldn't be enough you still have to look at the claim itself and say is it tied to meaningfully kinds of computer yes it is is it could be implemented without a computer no really don't understand how it seems to me that at least for the color thing if there's a very crude device that that only capture a very low level of big holes you could you could do it by hand you could take some measurements from them in the system and say they're doing it here and compare it to the universal system and you could come down to and say well the device comes off of this program comes off of the universal system by x m l so this device protocol is you need to adjust this particular color up this particular color down that can all be done by hand i mean i understand that if it's a really high level to be sold it might take you know decades to do it by hand but that's why a computer is useful but it doesn't say anything about necessarily using it in any kind of color data there's also spatial data and in addition all all the myriad the variables that go into taking a photograph it's just impossible as set forth and i've undergone it i mean we had lawyers who argued that oh you can do it pen  paper but there was an expert declaration that said you can't i think that this court on summary judgment is required to you those facts and most my favorite will to the appellant in which case on that point is you should have been in the paper could you do it to the actual image and device itself let's say you have your camera you're taking a picture of a less capable melton's you notice a bright sun in those dark shadows and then you say i'm going to go to my official for hundreds of the go down  seems to be missing the point the invention the there there were in the prior art their device dependent solutions so in other words they need have to calibrate each device for each other this has in part to do with a divide independent solution so in other words when they image is is processed by the digital processor you get a device you get something that is device deep in other words you understand what device you came from but what results is in a device independent teller space so it's a political to other devices down the line that's one of the invented steps of this of this claim and what you described a human just simply can't do because you're experts at a human could do it  possibly or privately be done by hand had to be decided milliseconds i don't you know and if the courts test this now that humans did hundreds of years could somehow figure it out i don't think that that's a test i think there judgment here district court rejected as unpalatable to such a claims the device profile claims as this court indicated are directed solely to data there generated by data include only data and indeed the preamble itself which refers to a device profile as describing the characteristics of the digital information processing system makes clear that it's data now instinctively say i agree with you that a database simply a claim to a database is rm it's what the score to set is if we want to get to the abstract idea question if the invention doesn't fit within the four statutory categories the district court found that as to the device profile claims it didn't fit within any of the four statutory categories and i think in re norton which i frankly do not know how to pronounce is is precisely on point here information cannot be a machine cannot be a manufacture cannot be a composition of matter and so the district court correctly concluded that information which is all that we're talking about in the device profile claims is not in the four statutory categories and i think at that point the inquiry can end we don't need to worry about what the supreme court might do in this patent has such a claim claim eighteen they didn't assert it in this case so it's not that it's impossible to claim an invention out of this patent it's that the claims they have chosen to assert are not directed to any of the four categories of statutory generating data is itself only the combination of data so even if that's not true as a general matter it's certainly true here if you look at the language you claim ten claim ten says a method of generating a device profile consists of generating a per second set  honor i think it is also the case that as this court held an expensive versus guide wire if there is no substantive difference between the method claims and they are a system claim they should stand or fall together and i think that is true here as well   the things that we are generating in claim ten are precisely the things that are being claimed as the come home at parts of the device profile and claim one hundred thirty and how you can say this message isn't a process as  honor i think first first i would suggest that if all i am generating is data and all i am using to generate that data is other data just calling it a method should not in fact change the conclusion if that were true addition would be abstract idea they are not limited to any particular device much less a specific machine they do not transform an physical article to another state or thing are you are you suggesting that perhaps the  things or result and there is nothing here in claim ten that suggests that is doing any such thing the very thing it is doing is taking data combining two pieces of data together and the thing it is generating is not a machine it's not because what quest me pass i was trying to understand this technology is what it says generate first data and then explain how to do it by natural chromatic stimuli and decisive response characteristic function and all this other stuff create what is effectively a new variable that would be valuable as an in use in the process so that when they say measure chromatic stimuli i suppose the paul patton was about how you can for the first time ever never before know measure chromatic stimuli and why that would be very valuable to a process i think you would be possible to write a claim that would cover the process of generating that information and using it in the real world this is not that  describes the properties of a system information so if i had a new way of writing a manual for a car at the end of the day of all i am generating is information what i all of this that follows i mean the whole method is going to be to determine a piece of information what's on your body but the methods that are physical and we didn't withdraw blood from you and then i'm going to perform a series of process itself physical i think that could be true although even then the supreme court's decision in mayo gives me pause there because me too but i have a well because because it seems to me to describe precisely that circumstance we drew blood we analyzed the blood we generated information in the court says that was insufficient unless the actual physical steps were themselves not and that case i think suggests that well you could imagine a circumstance in which the physical steps are new and sufficiently different that they justify a patent merely saying well the data is new is insufficient under mail in any event it's worth noting here that there is no such machine there are no such physical process steps and i think even if one were to conclude that that sort of claim could be patentable this is not that sort of claim this is instead at most granting everything that petitioner argues for trying to read in a processor device and hardware limitations it is at most a claim to generating information in the context of a general purpose computer system and this court has repeatedly said that that is insufficient in the dealer tracks case in the accenture case in the fourth i don't understand you saying that this is a general purpose for i don't know you me let me be absolutely clear this is not a general purpose computer there is no computer at all in this claim whether ometer but there's nothing in the claim language of any of these claims that requires that as a limitation these claims can be performed by me looking at a color and saying that colors off a bit i think we should change it ok but even if you're wrong about that and you're right that it is either a special purpose computer or a general purpose computer that doesn't and you are exactly right you're right so what i'm suggesting is that in the alternative even if we were to lose on all of those grounds it is still case that the device they want to read into these limitations a processor device which they themselves define as either a general purpose processor or a special purpose processor could be either one  just not enough of a physical addition to the claim to make it patentable it's precisely the kind of unspecified generic reference to computer technology that the court has repeatedly said and what do we make of them of the functions how do you do that without a computer well your honor i think the answer is you could it would depend entirely the on how much information you want to include in measured dramatic stimuli so one thing i could do is i could look at the sky and i could say it's bright it's dark it's a particular shade of blue it's another shade of blue i could hold the color wheel up again i measuring chromatic stimuli against it and you could do something similar with spatial stimuli now as i suggested at the the use of a let's say specialized computer or a process or to measure chromatic stimuli then this would be a different place i absolutely and i think that would at least be a much closer case but there is nothing here to suggest that the efforts that petitioners make to to read in those technologies i think just fly in the patients to meet with them read your argument that you're saying that the problem here is that the claim just stops and never takes shoe into i think there's been some conflation of when we talk about something that is abstract if the panel says that the device profiles non statutory that doesn't mean that it's abstract doesn't mean it's an abstract idea  so there's there's there's a statement that well if it's non statutory then you can't have a process i think that that's just that's just incorrect statement law there's a state of the claim eighteen has means less functional imitations this court case law has said that if there are claims that to you can change the nature and use of it that's one of the things that's happening here there is a practical result distortions in images are able to be corrected so under the under at least bilski you have transformation it's certainly tied to a device which the crystal clear from his declaration which is the only summary judgment evidence before the court as opposed argued which is not evidence that this cannot be done with head and hand has to be done with a computer is just too complicated thanks i think for the argument