address the problem of tedious toggling between applications on the device to find events under cases including ancora bascom core wireless and d d r the claim should have been found eligible allowed to survive some are just i'd like to comment like errors in that respect number one the court focused on the property content server as its own component as opposed to the way to interact with the network the proxy content servers importance is that it is an intermediary between on the one hand the information sources that come from the internet and on the other hand the mobile devices and it acts and the last time it's a conventional server isn't it the hardware itself could perhaps be labeled conventional however the way it's configured in the network with the software and i prefer the court to the bascom decision where similarly software was allowed to provide the architecture and the novel concept to be added to conventional hardware therefore calling a single component conventional hardware does not in the inquiry under this court cases and the reason why the proxy content server is different even if it were viewed as a component by itself the reason why different from my conventional proxy server which is what the prior are called it your argument to be that the proxy server causes an improvement in internet technology well i think it's actually useful and i this may be slightly confusing but i think it's useful to contrast the motion to dismiss decision content server takes the information from the from the information sources aggregates and stores it and then sends to the mobile device he was speaking of it as a network and he referred to the possibility at least of a factual issue on improvement of the technology however when we get to the summary judgment stage the district court sort of takes a different outlook on this point and he focuses narrowly on the proxy content server and doesn't focus as much on the other components and he says well this proxy content serve disappears from the later application so we don't think it's our view that it doesn't disappear rather it's referred to more and in shorthand and this court has not required either this court in fact in the recent tech sec ace acknowledged that you could have extrinsic evidence considered at step one on the issue of whether there was an improvement or comparison to the prior art but where certain you say it's referred to in short exchange seventy nine dollars column to towards the bottom of the prophecy content server also provides a method of combining the information so that the mobile device user has a consistent and transparent experience of receiving information content and advertising hardware by itself does not render something intelligible and i think judge o'malley your fur to it is it isn't enough to have a clever idea of how to use those components and i would respectfully submit the answer is yes and in cases like bass com and cases like and cora and corps i think is maybe the closest station to our case because then in court what you did was you took a conventional piece of hardware which was the bios memory of the computer the basic input output system memory it existed  for a while before they mentioned but what beat the novel idea was to put the verification program in her verify and find that the user had a software license to put it in that memory the bios memory instead of in conventional memory specification what what that does i think the best way to think about it is it's an additional sort of tool that the that this proxy content server in its broader environment uses to save on transmission from the proxy content server to the mobile devices and it's not just a sort of shorthand code that's how it was in the prior art certainly but in this in the context of this invention what the medical had all aus the invention to do is to wait until a user arrives at the space where the advertisement would be and then only at that point to send the advertisement over this limited bandwidth network and so it cannot just and i ask a question about that so is is t would not dispute that assertion it is focused on the server i would suppose i would suggest that the the medicaid and additional way in which the server can be efficient can economize on the use of bandwidth and i think you know it's helpful to step back and this is a problem that sort of uniquely solvable in the internet context because in a traditional newspaper context and we saw i think facebook in its brief referred to the idea of providing a sort of insert advertisement and a hard copy newspaper the problem with that is that you have to provide that all the all up front at the same time when the newspaper is delivered what the internet allows you to do for the st time is to send something at the moment just in time that you need it and so you can economize whereas in the prior art you couldn't that something that improves upon the certainly the more important improvement i would say the ninety nine is an incremental improvement if i from the provisional but the provisional is part of the file history of something that would be considered in construing the claims and we think it should be considered here in this court's precedents don't rule it out i see i'm into my  my key point there is this are court focused on the information gathering aspect of those patents as opposed to the full set of what the patent does do which is to both gather the information and to display it on a single user interface on the mobile device and that that combination of features is similar to core wireless among other cases and that is the inventive and non abstract notion there if i could reserve the remainder of my time for a bottle i would i would do so wish the claim or the specification covers but we have to look to exactly what the claim actually does cover the claim requires nothing more than seeding information storing in electing it to be sent somewhere else and then potentially transmitting the information that can be stored and can be as small as a single bit and then something that example in bar crime or i'm sure your honour's are where the broader claims were found to be ineligible and only when the claim added in where you don't have you don't restart repetitive information could you then achieve the benefit the problem here is but if we had said that we have said that you can you know you can find the description of benefits either in the written description or even through extrinsic evidence haven't we yes you have your honor but here for example there's no reason that the supposed benefit would be triggered if you follow the steps of the claim for example if you were sent simply a single bit a single piece of information that it's a question of staff and has come home correct your honor and what the reason that i raised the issue of the fact that you could perform this claim and  achieve nothing like the benefit they're telling is if you look through the claim and you send only a small piece of information even through push even through the system that is acknowledged in claim one as being something that was already happening and that is not i'm not asking i'm not talking about that for obviousness purposes i'm talking about the fact that that is therefore not the benefit they were attempting to achieve in fact the patent self tells us that the real goal of patent was a business reason and a commercial reason in column three beginning at line sixteen the patent says one possible goal of combining information with advertising content is to achieve a are helping a user get the right information at a triggering time so that it can potentially reduce costs because the advertising is being sent no where in anything about improving the computer mentioned in any way this is not a technological solution to a technological problem it's a business problem getting the right information to the right person so that you can reduce costs potentially  there's always a business purpose behind software improvement so the question is just because it was a business purpose doesn't necessarily mean it's improving it isn't improving how the proxy content serve so again you here your honor when have we had admissions that the proxy content server is not an improvement in hardware in fact we know that this was standard hardware and that the software that is used to program it is simply quote implementation details and we know that not only from the argument of counsel down below when he admitted during the oral arguments that the changes software were just implementation details but we know that from the specification itself that talks about constantly about the fact that the way the proxy content server is implemented can be done in several ways one quoted from the specification of column three the combining of information may be achieved in several ways based on the implementation of the proxy contents are unfortunately the remainder of the specification the entire inch in the directory is silent as to what those implementation details are which brings us directly into the to a media case where you also had information getting from a source hopefully to the right person in a more efficient they said in that case way but there was no description of how that was to happen what about were maintained in the specifications the provisional does not say anything other than if you are sending lots of data not using push you may have been with difficulties but the claim does not require technology be sufficient to render it eligible at step one i don't believe so your honor because it's not a calling it computer only problem and then the last thing i would say is that for example b s she tells us that you have to take the abstraction out if simply abstraction results in something beneficial that's not enough for example any amount of filtering work putting the information to the right person is going to achieve the band with benefits and potentially battery benefits but to line sixty using the the pen as a gateway between the computer network and the word network was that conventional at the time of the pen yes absolutely honest and we know that because the inventor actually admitted that being able to use a server to store information was well known their own expert talked about the fact that using a proxy a two as a gateway core wireless what you've heard is how blackberries desire characterization is tethered any way to the claims in terms of having a new just but especially with respect to the eighty four patent which doesn't the positioning of the proxy contents or the predefined information categories the feedback signal or triggering events traditional conventional generic and well known i mean i think doctor on monitoring deposition and in his expert declaration again due to infringement concerns admitted that these are all traditional well known generic concepts so i don't think any of them rise to the level of what we see in tech sec computer improvements in the technology or something that changes the way in the way in which the computer operates let's let's go back to the to the environment that is the mobile communication network we have a generic processor a generic display a generic user interface we have no novel display and like to mention that there's talk of doing is somehow you know we're get ordered a combination of the claim elements there i mean the argument that your friend on the other side is making is that that it is improving technology because it allows the display of of information on combination which is just as generic specked of receiving transmitting and displaying information and that's all it requires using generic components that it changes the character what the claims are directed to the claims are directed to locating and mapping activity of interest or collecting in order and we just heard from counsel in his opening remarks information gathering in this way that's what the claims are directed to and then when we just added the generic components this court is not for wireless writing core wireless we had meant a summary window in the claims that actually added within it the ability to access applications from that summary window and actually the ability to then launch those applications from that new summary window in and of itself here recently have display action spots which again longstanding practices crime maps that we've seen earthquake maps that we've seen as the court was told during the rule twelve context absolutely correct and then the court waited to have the developed record of summary judgment with claims construction the plaintiff infringement contentions blackberrys propounded broad claims for acting spot determining one action environment there's nothing special that mobile environment there's nothing special that display this is not what we have in core wireless is more like trading technologies e p g or otherwise are you arguing quantity are you arguing that there is no technological advance or improvement at all or that there's some but not enough similar to what we've heard before so the issue there is that advertising helps bring down the cost of the wireless service so what we're talking about more sending advertising and content is yet more information than you would have had previously and that gives rise to an even greater  which is the reason why the provisional and other evidence including the inventor and expert testimony talked about the need to reduce bandwidth by using the proxy content server and this is important that the practical i said this in the open but i want to underscore it is the p is not like the prior art proxy servers because it is much more autonomous and what it does and i think this is prime to smita fact territory because her little life a simple question i think and cora actually relies on bascom as precedent in the context of step one so there isn't always a stark distinction at least in those two cases between the two step so we arguing under both steps the so again the band with specifically pointed out there was nothing on the feedback signals that were used here by contrast feedback signals clearly describing the klan's as location of the device as well as the triggering event being timed so we have that element of specificity was absent from two way  and the claim itself as judge o'malley pointed out not need to recite the benefits it does certainly need to refer to the features that accomplish those benefits but here it does so it talks about a system for push as the preamble of claim one the would why wouldn't the the the absence or the non requirement with so much talk really why would then not be an improvement in computer functionality we think it would be an improvement  computer functionality just as it was in core wireless d d r and data engine is when the user has to do less navigating back and forth that is true by those cases an improvement in the efficiency of the computer it's also a problem unique to the internet which goes back to the patent teligent case that i started with so for all of those reasons we think that both of these patents should be viewed as non non abstract at the summary judgment stage at step one and alternatively to have an inventive concept at step two