this is that this is the error that you could fall into by by thinking that that you can take a combination which may happen to include various items that have are common oh it does because what you're doing is essentially you're referring to words that make up the claims and say that these things are wraps tracked well of course all words are abstract they all represent different concepts and different actions and in their combination in each one possibly each one could be considered to be unpatentable by itself of course right but the combination had never been done before and it resulted in something which was the exact object of of the other pattern itself the plant itself is directed to produce using a perfect about the words a ballot that was voted for by the by the voter and which actually represents without mistake his his vote and it is the processing of that that particular type of valid that is that is the basis for the invention this is going pretty well stated in the background of the invention and in the in the pattern itself so county then actually conducted a and finished a recount the the fact is that that during the process that of this canvassing in production of this  of this recount it was observed by one of the inventors that the biggest problem was in this s a different target tension of different markings on the ballot there's a thing called a mark sense about which i'm sure you're all familiar with because you probably use them you go to a polling place you're handed a ballot with a bunch of circles and names on it and you're supposed to fill in the circle or the mark since ballot can is very difficult to use as a matter of fact there's no guarantee that any of the things that have any of the votes that are made with marks and spout are properly counted because any any deviation can be rejected by the machine now there are certain remedies that have been used to try to correct that but there's nothing certain about whether or not the ballot actually represents the modes of the voter and in terms of how you interpret a mark these marks and ballots are precisely filled out ok and can be precisely counted by the voting gently machine and that's that's basically it now it's not just a question also but most important it was back to this case in that respect to the infringement action that has been brought it is claimed forty nine and claim forty nine claimed eighty five including eighty and ninety three are dependent upon it by statute think forty nine has been able to be a ballot right and it can be invalidated by by this court for the time being but not necessarily invalidated in in this ballot and if you do that then you're going to have a bigger problem no i do not because there's a participation when i look at and i see the methods that see the steps it's all conventional there's nothing write a printer that responds to input and fills out the ballot perfectly so that there can be no mistake as to what that the voter voted for and is that aspect of it including the voters review of that ballot after it's printed ok from his input into the computer when he examines that he gets an opportunity to determine well is this what i really voted for you know and when that determination is made he has made the comparison now all of that is included within the system within the system that is accused of infringing and the fact is that the main reason that the middle district and and this court consider that to be inappropriate and not agency relationship between the voter and the and the company that produced the machine prove produce the system so the fact is that because there was no such in employment relationship it was found not not to infringe however there is no way that anyone can go into a into a our voting system voting situation and  do what he pleases he has to adhere to the voting system that he is being is present with and having been presented with that situation he has to conform to it and thereby it's under the control of whoever produced and provided the voting system and thereby complies with the issues that are usually presented with three with respect to control in the b m c case which of absent all of these things that have been overturned in overruled we are or have already won this action same for the hail mary pass that has been attempted by the motion  is an abstract idea i don't i wonder if the if we can make application to ordinary philosophical principles in determining what an abstract idea is you can't apply you can't so you want an abstract idea that's it this is general description of what we have and it is comprised of words which are concepts and therefore abstract and if that's what you have to hang your head on obviously there is a this thing is using a computer that there is a computer that's used by this by this process and therefore it is invalid under up under the alice rule because it is at the computer the computer is actually employed in some part but the computer is not employed to completely use and completely utilize the system it is used only for this election and printing of that of the ballot that the rest of this the rest of the system the rest of the method is something that the the voter is forced by not to voluntarily comply with in terms of carrying out the system and thereby it's under the control of the voting authority which is using the system which is which was purchased on when you vote with a computer you basically give input to a printer the computer prints what you want to print you look at the output of the printer and you say this is what i want to not what i want if it is you vote if it's not you keep us from about it think as we believe since there was a change in the law if you preclusion does not prevent us from raising this issue again secondly for issue preclusion to apply at all apart from the fact it was a change in the law separately you have to have four things for issue preclusion to here with respect to change the law is that there was no child no but what i'm saying is before the whole section want to one issue came into focus for everyone before bills q four hours before mayo computer programming was regularly accepted by the patent office as a volunteer had the subject matter and those patents were regular enforced by the courts bilski started the move away from that mayo out the voter particularly clean forty nine printing of the votes of the voter from the votes temporally stored in the computer so the computer takes you to the voters and put it prints the ballot the next session of the actual verification and the next step comparison by the voter call requires a voter to compare of the printed votes with the votes temporarily stored in the computer for the voting station so loading station displays how you voted and then do they give you the printout in the voter supposed to compare the print out against  anything else will thank you thank you declaratory judgment which they defended against and i have no no reason what i did they selected their their desires to be known to the trial judge but the fact is that it was a  these issues up and they have to be responded to by the plaintiff and you plate but them in play and that's precisely why she ruled the way she did the other thing is this notion that they consen  to the judgment of course it would then becomes absurd in view of the fact that they are the ones who raised all the issues in the in the counter claim which was held against them now with ok the creation of the two step process the two step process has nothing to do with whether or not an invention is that it is abstract or simply an abstract idea that has been the law stated by judge can't just start this from the from the very beginning in terms of where it when the distinctions were made as to what was kept the ball under one or want so so that has not changed the to me that clearly is an abstract idea it is something that can be performed within a computer it can be performed within the human mind so this calls to mind the latest suggestion on this issue analyze the claims in view of whether or not there is a pattern of all invention starting with starting with whether or not the i idea is abstract so as  to the process and it and it was a became an automated process for for adjusting the temperatures and the for the for the production of vulcanized rubber so