treated independent claims one in twenty two is illustrative why shouldn't we treat one in twenty two as representative let's cut right to the core thank you ron or first there's no representative claim it was no request that the court rule that there that claim one was representative there was a statement made as you sat at the oral hearing but the parties certainly never agreed that it was representative in the court did not so rule the fact that the fence did not separately address the defense dependent claims doesn't relieve them of their burden to prove that those claims were not to one where we discuss the deep in a claims is that a for sixteen again at four forty one and in the reply brief the defendant's again go through the asserted dependent claims at let's take a look at claim three for example and that's at eight twenty seven column eleven at the bottom entire argument on six forty one six forty two as far as i can tell one par you can check the opening brief defendants opening brief at two forty seven to  you not agree there's no ruling on the independent claim satisfy one a one on their own because step one of the alice test requires that you look at the individual limitations and you look at the main combination the court failed to consider them in combination secondly the court had to look at inventive concept and here the inventor of concept is tracking an object without reference to ground that  technological salute problem that it was is the motion tracking art and it solved challenges in the motion tracking art because prior systems that tracked motion with respect to ground had latency problems they had an accurate results and they simply didn't function properly so no matter how you look at it with you look at claim one which we're not asserting but it survive without reference to ground without reference to ground is the inventive concept here your honor her i think dear talks about both steps pacifically dear says it is improper to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then ignore the presence of elements in the analysis and that's what of federal claims did specifically here and that step one you have to look take a look at what's claimed and consider them it also addresses the inventive concept step two about one way to think look at what the claim itself was directed to that's absolutely right and here the claims are directed to tracking an object without reference to ground and they include the specific limitation in addition judge pro said in a rapid litigation management that you pass the inventive concept step to by showing that there is an improved went on existing technological processes we have that here as well but john is that can't raise to the level of novelty it's it's sufficient to make sure that the claims themselves do not cover such an unpalatable abstract idea looking again at alice stepped to the specification shows it describes the invention and it shows it vantages of the invention and those are things that are appropriate to consider in the inventive as an part of the case law has confirmed that the specification is important for determining the technological advancement for determining the problem solving the prior art and for putting context on the cla one thing i've wanted to address is the yes he's conclusion that equations are claimed or laws of nature claim i'm not sure what equations or laws of nature the c f c is saying they say navigation wages however there is no general navigation equation issue here a situation in your dependent claims i know there is not the independent claims right isn't there some formula claimed independent claims no you is a relationship between the constants and variables and it may aid in performing the process but it's not the process itself and the equations that are issue in this case are equations ten eleven and twelve which are eight twenty five but it doesn't provide the equations a set forth in ten through twelve however even if it did because of the specific structure described in the claims and the technological advancement which the exists he claims to find over the prior art and the clips i'm sorry the claims contain patent eligible subject matter the inventors did a simulation test to these equations at ten through twelve the equations are a model there specific to the structure and the invention claimed for so in order to determine whether their specific model for tracking an object without reference to ground worked they developed a simulation and that simulation is discussed in the specification it starts a column nine the simulation was done because they were worried about errors bias errors and they didn't know how bad that would be if the claims contained in law of nature or if these equations were well and certainly i compared talk about it and the claims but at least insofar as judge wheeler's ruling is concerned in his judgment that the claims are invalid under section one one i think it's fair to say it's very characterization of the briefing before the  federal claims that the focused attention by both sides was on the independent claims the extent that they had tried to argue that it dition all elements that invent a concept for example and they did little more than list what the pending claims fairly discern from his motion whether he treated the representative claims as governing deep any claims or do you think i can understand from his order that he separately considered but  discuss the defendant claims how what is your approach when i think you think he did i think you could you could determine that he did both of those things i think he certainly a value it would be a really good idea for courts to invalidate entire patents in say you know by pointing out the faults in a representative claim and never ever discussing the dubious depending claim he says individual property rights do you think that would be a good rule of law that would not be a good rule of law however is that what you're asking or that is not  nothing about the pending claims during the entirety of the or large amount on the much failure to argue something that you argued in your briefs in an oral hearing ways all those arguments that were otherwise made in your brief is that the rule of law that you're to which claim has them and then explain at least for physical limitations further define the censors of claims one in twenty two and they went into detail why in the world are those properly hath why should i treat those having properly been resolved by virtue of his resolution of claims one in twenty two understood and even if the court were to determine that judge wheeler's decision did not extend to them and we believe it did because it did grant the motion and as your honor points out there ability is an issue of law for the court that would strike me as an in a fairly inefficient way to approach dealing with the claims here certainly this court which has now had a full round of briefing on the want to when issues and can take up these issues as it does do novo is in a position to make those determinations and i think i think there are a couple of points that are critical here for purposes of the court's evaluation of the independent claims and depending claims of first of all  focusing on the role of the sensors which i think everyone would agree is indispensable here sensors are generic they're conventional they're used for their well understood purpose thomas actually conceded this in the court of federal claims proceedings we pointed this out in our briefing that at the oral argument and this is it in the appendix it sixty four three hundred sixty five we had made the argument that the sensors were generic conventional use their well understood purpose and counsel disagree counsel went back at the very end of the hearing and had the last word and referred to our arguments about the sense of being conventional as a red herring and went on to concede that the inertial sensors ar conventional object but they're put together and in new combination professionally a new result i don't think that would fall under even the supreme court's version of alice so where is the abstract idea because absent the abstract idea and the claim being directed to an abstract idea the fact that you can point out that various elements of the claim happened the conventional when they're put together in a novel non obvious combination doesn't suddenly make everything ineligible right i don't disagree with ineligible subject matter here are the navigation equations which we are we contend are a law of nature they are a mathematical expression of the relationship between two moving objects and the claims are directed to that because if you look at the claims inertial sensors that are used to generate data for the inputs for there was a creation they are also arranged in the same way that they were arranged in the prior art council talk about how this invention is fundamentally directed to is not used in a different way and it is not a ranged in a different way in fact in tolleson brief in the principle brief on page thirteen they describe the prior art systems and the tracking systems that involve relative tracking but having to go through the ground where you tracked an object relative to the ground and then moving platform relative to the ground and related that to that is the problem that they purport to overcome at this invention and allow you to track two moving objects relative to each other and what they say about this navigation frame and frame should be used such that the moving platform p and the user's head each can be tracked relative the ground n in this way the user head pose which shorthand for position orientation could be calculated relative to the moving which tells us that the only difference between this system that you're tracking it relative to the ground but you still think there should trackers it is different and i don't understand your point because you're saying the sensors are being used in a conventional both circumstances on both the track object in the moving parts don't you talk more if i understand what you're saying but i think you're better that is to explain why it is that this claim is directed to a math ineligible subject matter like a mathematical formula or why the combination as a whole doesn't have a technological advancement because it's wanting to have alice because both the sensors used for that conventional purpose and the location of the sensors is the same in the priority system as it is in their alleged invention and the only difference the only difference is they have a new equation such that the inputs from the sensors are run through a new equation to allow you to bypass having to calculate relative to the ground where is the equation in claim one the equation is not specifically recited in claim one is not specifically recited in any of the claims although this court has held previously that the failure to specifically recite an algorithm in a claim is not significant the claims can still be directed to laws of nature and al it is a case or anything like that i believe that actually alice kay said that in fact i think the petitioner i think there was a comment to the fact that the court didn't accord great significance to that much less the that was placed on by the patent the point here is that the only difference that allows for this relative motion tracking the outgoing to the ground is the new equation when it fundamentally tells us is that the claims are directed from the earth in one respect your honor dear heads a specific outcome that was tied to a product  this case and these claims do nothing more than solve an equation inputs go in numbers going from conventional sensors and outcomes i know nothing more than a process for molding rubber and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula and it goes on to say we recognize of course that this process involves mathematical formula so why isn't this an attempt to pat means of tracking a means of tracking generally means of tracking without reference to ground either way and it doesn't matter to me if but a means of tracking that happens to utilize a formula as part of the the tracking process why you know there is data gathering from the sensors and that's when this isn't just solving a medical question there's a useful result that comes from your able to track an object just like in deer there was a useful result that came from utilizing that equation you cured rubber better than the prior processes were able to do sell so why i don't know this is what i'm struggling i mean alice is such a bore fisting that i mean it's almost you know it's like shooting ducks with a vial you know you can't sort of figure out where they are but dealers just seem so calm clearly you know and this case seems to track so clearly on it that's that to me is your obstacle you have to mention alice again because deer is clearly still good law and the cases are so and the final product is a pose a number a mathematical expression these claims do not then feed that  mathematical information into a tracking system these claims are extremely broadly crafted and there are consequences to draft in claims broadly and i'm correct that the sensors that are involved are all on the aircraft and nothing is fed through a ground station in either in either circumstance by either circumstance you mean  i would just add your honor that in these claims so broad the only elements we have are conventional sensors that gather data they do not do anything that they did not do before and as opposed to end fish and all of those other cases is described as nothing more than an element that performs a mathematical operation in the case of claim three integration in the case of cl a federal claims didn't consider this a representative claim case if you look at the decision at a for the court of federal claims that and this is that on the very first line on page eight or claims two three twenty one all depend directly or indirectly on claim one and thus incorporate the same three limitations this shows that the court of several claims erred in not specifically considering the additional limitations in the deep in claims but we guard lists you can look at the independent claims and what a pelleas council is trying to get us to do here is a novelty analysis but that's not what's required for inventive concept inventive concept is something that sufficient to determine that we're not using an abstract idea but a pelleas council it met that al limitations are present we're not looking to see whether there novel we're not looking to see whether there generic where you looking to see whether they're structure that's present and it's more than just the sensors it's the sensors that determine an orientation they determine something that the aircraft can use and they solve the problem of not having to use the ground as a reference that is new so even if we had to raise the level of novelty we would survive it just as the peter the help we did your honors in conclusion the asserted claims are limited in scope to an ordered combination of patent eligible elements they sought the known