directed to the abstract idea of tracking freight claims instead cover a particular way of monitoring their shipments location by tracking the location of the device or sociate it but that shipment using location data obtained from a third party crowther than the device itself all while the team in the appropriate consents the claims exclude all other ways of tracking freight including inferior frederick techniques claims pass our step two for similar reasons the claims inventive concept is to obtain the devices location from a third party rather than the device itself while also securing the appropriate consent and correlating a particular device to a particular piece understand how can something it's part of your argument it doesn't even make sense to me that consent has simply to do with whether or not you'd be violating someone's privacy concerns i don't see how that is a patentable thing that they did inventive concept the idea of securing permissions that you don't violate someone's you could rights doesn't seem like an inventive whether there is a particular inventive contribution it's not just looking at everything taken together as a whole is it new or different i wish that were it but that ain't it that's that's not what they said in alice that's not consistent with ultra mercial or any number of electric power grid or any number of other cases it is is there a particular inventive aspect of the claim it's not taken as a whole that's not what step two is about in each of our cases that have come out in step two point particular aspect of the claim that is inventive so i don't see how security consensus in that well here that invented concept is obtaining the what cation information from a third party as opposed to the device itself and then doing that abstract idea as tracking freight and these claims don't cover all ways of tracking freight they don't cover obtaining the information directly from the driver they don't cover obtaining the information from a device that's pre installed  truck they don't want another matter where you're getting the information you're just sending and receiving information claims are just covering anyway it's sending and receiving information they're covering i'm sending and receiving information as part of this method for tracking the location of the freight and the cover and sending and receiving begin to narrow the transmission of information or the receipt of it then i think we begin to get away from the abstract idea of we've seen that sending information but i don't see that in your claims and that's true the claim is cover any way of that's the it's always been done that way there's and i mean that only in the sense that that it's conventional the use of the truck driver's location and the truck driver calling or supplying that information i you may have something with respect to that to the to the service providers given the information eighty and t and sprint but you didn't invent that so it was not conventional to get the information from a third existing technologies in a new way and that's the same thing we have here yes it's true sending and receiving data was known yes it's true that you know because there were consent principles in the prior art that it was taking all those things and har g them in a particular way and that's reflected in these claims that doesn't cover many other ways of tracking frames and we think the  we think you know as we said in our brief the concern a lot of these cases have been twofold one are you taking existing human activity and putting it on a computer that's not the case here this isn't like the budgeting cases or some of the business that the type cases and the second concern has been are you claiming a particular result but without saying how you get to that result the electric power case from sort of wonderful silos but they just don't track cell phones cell phones are used to track the people carrying cell phones is it really a logical leap to say the cell phone is used to track the guy carrying the cell phone and what he happens to be holding in his hands  r and and proliferated again that has come it's not does it improve the efficiency of the system what using a general purpose computer always improve the efficiency of a system that was done manually in the past so it's not just improving the efficiency of the system the section is more narrow it's improving the efficiency of the operation of the actual device computer that's what that's come in d v r stand for and as far as i can tell nothing more i don't know the best comes out narrow your honor because it talks about for example not having to go through the inconvenience of having individual users there install a website and train software on their personal computers and how that was a problem because you might have users that didn't want to install blocking software her example they bascom help that that was part of the technological solution there and here likewise eliminating the need for the pre installed equipment and the trucks just someone way technological if there are no further question reduced in that way to it's abstract idea and then step one could never be failed but yet we have planes that have survived step one you know and fish for example refreshed technologies or something like that rakim you  so so i mean i don't know i don't see how the abstract idea in this case is tracking free as opposed to if a method of tracking free using third party and that could very well be your honor and our point on this is you know if we take walk at what we believe the test to be and that is on alice step one to look at the claims as a whole and consider them as a whole and look to ascertain what their character as a whole is when you look at these claims claim one of the nine four three patent for instance which was representative claims of the district court of analyzed the elements of the claim correlating freight to a cellphone receiving it were question location information getting consent requesting in obtaining cell phone location from the service provider correlating the cell phone location consent and everything else that for the better macro point is born into how these claims differ though from the wife of and fish and other cases that have said well no that's that is not an abstract idea this is a fundamental longstanding business practice tracking for it interest was not different than the interest one of cases that you've got a method of tracking for it which is a longstanding fundamental business practice for the run forever albeit the specific way that it's claiming these patents these elements in our view  of software particular spot where patterns that have to be utilized how this is not a computer what you're doing your honor is your tracking you are correlating figure to of the pattern specifically talks about how this information is correlated using advanced what we're talking about is obtaining the location information how is that done it is done by sprint buying t n t not by back a point and it's done via that particular method it's done via g p s or another method which if you know it's not going to be a palace that's abstract at least what was going on there with respect to alice stepped to the the individual elements were found to be preexisting well understood conventional activity with respect to that second aspect of looking at the order combination the filtering software and where it was placed improve the efficiency and functioning of the computer system specific to those coins that's the difference here what we don't have is the computer system the generic computer components that are shown in the packet here nothing special or new about them used in a way that they've always been used processors memories io buses all the things that are specified using the exact same way that they've always been used but instead of getting location location like i don't think it does your honor because when you look at this this is well understood conventional activity obtaining location data to track freight using a cellphone to track the location of the cell phone because what the tracking of the freight is doing in these  the correlation step they're taking that information that's obtained from eighteen to and spread whoever that cell phone provider is and they're correlating it via this figure two in the pattern and say ok we're saying if that's straight which or that cell phone  spread is with that piece of freight on that truck be it a simple table and that's where we're saying that is not inventive step it's not like they ask on increasing the efficiency by implementing that table in a big generic or pewter that's just a et that that is correct with respect to your first point we agree completely your honor i think the link if you will between attraction and that cell phone which is what's going on and tracking the freight via the location information from the cell phone provider is this correlation what macra point is set is you know we we believe that's part of the inventive concept here that saves us under step two that's this basic table figure two of the patent is this correlation table tracking a driver with a specific cell phone on a truck with a piece of freight implementing that if you have standard ordinary generic computer components which mcnamara point has it been argued there are some special type of computer used here is nothing more acknowledged where there are no material differences in the plain language well what we're doing is changing you know one element here and there moving things around whether we talk about location data by that cell phone provider has to be tracked me g p s or not  thought you made good arguments about why they didn't save claim one so let me just put that out there but i don't think it was recorded right when they agreed to come one representative am i missing some stipulations somewhere that you're aware of in this record where you believe that they were not was that the points that mark the point try to look to and suggest as being different which they've done here in this court were things like i think this was in the blue brief it pages twenty nine to thirty obtaining location information with or without g p s or causing location information to display be displayed visually they noted the same things and they were ply what they didn't do is explain how those are material differences in these patent claims that somehow take these outside the scope of what would be appropriate otherwise appropriate representative claiming as opposed to for one of my time's up there on a me i help of course there's a question i think it's a very apropos point around i think what you make of that is that that cannot be inventive that aspect of what macro point points to is somehow invented under section one of one cannot be invented because it was done by someone else it's been mandated by the government that information's been out there for a long time and we're not in a one or two one of three announced obviously it would have relevance there as well but our position is that suggests that aspect of their play and inventive something that you can at best as was done in the grove to reinforce your assessment of the results of the two part alice test i understood preemption to drive the creation of the test as one of the problem factors but not to be some sort of independent oh well this doesn't seem to present rent for him to live it's very gus we're going to let it go i don't see that standing alone as some sort of independent task is that your understanding as well i absolutely we come out there we don't have a sufficient preemption concern or we don't and i agree and i think here we also decision gets into this too that if it's that two part test that is directed to the issue of preemption we go through that to protest but we don't have a separate independent or at least under current law we don't have a separate independent legal analysis on the issue of preemption beyond doing our step one and alice step to and i give you a lot of difficult  abstract idea because i'm struggling with how to articulate the maybe two pieces that we've decided where something wasn't determined to be an abstract idea i mean do you have some way that you think you can explain to me what it means to be an abstract idea and how to think about that task because you know lots of people seem to be a lot more it made me included i feel like they're only in minds everywhere they're just data points and i'm trying not to step on the line as i make my way through these cases and you know so i mean do you have any idea how you would articulate what is the test for when something is not tracked and keeping in mind that not everything can be because we've had at least two cases that went the other way on problem it's i thank you for the question a lot of because i've thought about this and i think all of us are dealing with this issue well i think i appreciate the question because i think it's very difficult  and we look at the way that the test under step one has been evaluated well understood fundamental longstanding business practices you know doable why human without a computer i get what i see this doesn't directly answer the question but i want to second other cases which i think you are getting to that are similar in nature and where they've gone which someone else doesn't help it at the end of the day i try to force what the supreme court said in the alice ca and what it comes down to for me is some indication that what is here is not concrete and specifically tethered and that's probably not the best formulation either as i think about it on the fly but something that is specific and concrete is i try to as we do try to look through the cases in the decisions that this court and the supreme court of issued on this point there doesn't seem to be a clear line but i think for me at the end of the day there's got to be some concrete was here it's got to be more than an abstraction i try to look at ok what is the meaning of the word abstract in addition to what is the meaning of the word idea we know the stature talks about ideas but it's difficult other cases court's fair warning versus i answered systems decision in october i think it's helpful on this point to similar factually both procedurally and substantively here with respect to the types of claims and the alleged non abstract idea  i think so your honor i mean obviously you know there have to be the appropriate consent the correlating stuff all the stuff the claim would have to be met but perhaps in principle it's true to address your concerns now in many of the cases the walk particular websites for that user that wasn't reciting those claims and yet the court relied on that as a technological benefit to hold the claims kind eligible under step two so i think the question is is a consequence of the claims or as a result of practic the person holding a mobile phone and i have a correct rate ok so you didn't that's not necessary you didn't invent the communication devices you didn't invent sending and receiving information over the internet over wires so what's left what's left is a correlation between the cell phone and the the free and you're playing front we get that's what the claimant to me when you put all the limitations together what you have is tracking freight by obtaining the location information from a third party and doing it with the no one had gotten the location of that that device from a third party before as opposed to the device itself and this i think was a problem with respect to freight but i would venture to say well i don't know and i haven't looked at the record but i after i disagree i think it specially with respect to step two you have to look at the whole claim you have to look at everything as an ordered combination and so you're not only correlating the device with the freight but you're getting a location about device from a third from one place to another it's already in the third party's hands and you're just saying please give it to me as opposed to essentially some best chemist is about moving a function from one portion of a network to another portion of a network in such a way that i mean it's at least this was asserted really inventive and changes the structure of the and the efficiency of operation of the physical  but i'm not sure what the counterpart here is because this information is sitting already at the eighteenth you are less i don't know what they're called hubs are some so i think and receiving data from and the question was can we take that existing information that the i c has and harness it in a way to combine it in a way that we can improve web filtering technology i think it's the same thing here where we're using information that eighteen g has but we're using it as a way to improve tracking freight by simultaneously monitoring from multiple shippers using multiple cell phone tracking technology is moving the need for pre installed equipment doing so in  real time in continuous manner no prior art system had accomplished that before and so it's least for purposes of a want to want analysis we suggest that that is a sufficient inventive concept especially given the you conceded the non representative the representativeness of claim one certainly the district court erred by not looking at least at those claims and not finding them can eligible for at least that additional reason