dichotomy we proposed to meet this need in this way planes drawing nearly at the end if we believe that these that i'm setting out of the system with all the authority coming from this court in the united states supreme court of course a train  computer for example and that's not true a lot of these cases where we've rolled that ineligible like doing something on a computer the fact that it's done on a computer is what makes it possible it still doesn't make it eligible there are certain calculations that are impossible to be performed by the human mind and at the speed that would enable the use of that abstract idea to the any actual use in the marketplace it doesn't render them eligible just because it's useful you know absolutely or i completely agree what i mean to say is that the the context in which it's rinder doesn't need in other words the computer is not made better because the solution itself components of the system itself responding to the issuance of the message the system itself is responding to acknowledgement of that issue now on the telephone example of a customer doesn't pay their bill you pay your bill and somebody flips a switch somewhere whereby your services return but the system is not responding to that as required we submit in claim on it is it is the interrelation of the sunni and all these components of the access rules the messages to the system create a limit on bandwidth in this instance they give the customer a knowledge of the message and the system responds by i mean i'm not sure that this matters much that you know whether it's limited to a computer or not because it's still an abstract idea well your honor we believe because the context of the claim is confined to the use of the internet or use of networks as a messaging medium that that is not so broad as simply a computer and in that context in the context of the internet or networks being used as a messaging somebody comes in and says well i've got a system here and it makes things better and i use a computer to do it so it makes the computer better oh well your honor we respectfully disagree in the sense that if you think of  to get three at or get further access that need in some sense the system better because you got more money from well but you're under it it didn't make the system better it made the use of it better is much like describe same exact thing you know your honor we were making it better about the system in the system say thing the computer doesn't change the network doesn't change the operation doesn't change what you're doing is using it to make sure somebody responds to a a message to a recipient you hopefully get it you hopefully respond to within the system itself modifying the system itself it changes it is now a system that can be used to incentivize knowledge much of the message and so your honor we believe again that gets back to is it an abstract idea or not americans not abstain alter mercial when they had a pop up and said if you watch this you get further content or something incentivize exploring hands that generate revenue yes your honor but in that case the what just just a yes your honor but in that case the the exchange of copyrighted material and exchange for the an advertisement was something that was done both within and outside of the context this was not really a problem or a challenge limited to that context and that's what that's what made it abstract if it was not network as a messaging platform work better and have more features in other words if you stop at the level of computer absolutely but our claims don't do that they go further they  a network use as a messaging system and platform and that is why it narrows it from the abstract something that happens everywhere i mean we are being respectful of your honor that that before e mails existed or in a particular value before e mail there was certainly a need for mail to be acknowledged that's the point of certified mail return receipt everything like that this is all common  the overall mail service we we simply do not deliver that article which by the way certified mail only proves that you received the envelope in which the message was actually contain there's none verification court tracy really for airwaves networks when i first looked at this patent when i got involved in this case last year the first thing that comes to mind is i'm a mother i've got four end users their names are alex andrew john and michael and i have access rules for them they can watch t v they can play on the computer they can do just about anything unless they have a zero coming from a teacher then i the second access rule they can and they have limited access to their computer to their car to whatever it is that i can limit them i walk in and they're still playing games on their computer because i said ok i'll give you another access rule you can play you can get on the computer but only for homework and i come in there and i see that you are doing something other than homework guess what you're off it off the computer for two weeks what this system that they've designed in this patents is i think the trucker was being generous to say that it was a longstanding commercial practice it was a fundamental economic concept that's true telephone companies cable companies were doing for this for years but this is goes further than that this is a classic abstract idea as well the telephone company analogy was raised the cable company analogy was raised even the timeout solution which was a book written way back when about how to parent your children was raised with the court below where was that  let's see i'm not sure exactly where that would have been raised your honor it may have been in the in the actual transcript of the alice hearing and that's where i believe i would find it  feeling is that this is sort of the more classic abstract idea that i don't think this court has previously addressed one so that doesn't have like a moral question to it i really not a surprise at all maybe so but this is not as sophisticated or technical as all to marshal laws for example this is not even into that realm where whom is it really changing something within the computer system and making something different happen the way they have drafted this claim and if we if we follow the instruction of this court we look to the claim and the claim is extremely extremely broad the preferred bodyless they talk about extremely broad they could say the network the network management device could be a telephone system a cable system any kind of networking device i'm thinking you could substitute me for a network device because it doesn't necessarily have to be you know i can i can have a button and for me that makes me be the network of devices if you want to connect me into my computer system at home which we do i mean this is a day in age that you know this is been a longstanding princip where the parents have control over what their kids watch i can shut off the t v that's my controller but right there i don't think that their claims reach the same level of question that the last six months or a well it's interesting that they talk about that but if you go and look at the claim it just says the second access rule is more restrictive than first access more means could be zero could be one could be zero so i don't think the claim supports that argument i don't think you know going to the next step of alice i don't think there's anything that provides the specificit have the same technical issues that were specifically asserted to improvement in that field like improvement in computer animation there's no magic to this there's no highly technical type language that makes this question like is this something new and something different that they've added that something more to it  i'm sorry i said anything else i just think that this is one of the it falls into the broader category of the cases that you all have decided that is an abstract idea implemented on a computer system i think it falls into that bigger category of those kind of cases that has been decided by this court this i would think would be the type of case that you might consider for a real thirty six judgment that sort of thing i don't think it adds anything to the current status of how we evaluate want to one cases those are my thoughts on it here on thank you around our classrooms do we preempt how we do for example not be within the scope of our claims and yet still control messaging over the internet you could have for example repeated sending a message if you could within this without the tea party within the scope of the claims of this pat it is limited it is not preemptive and again i would respectfully or as this improves not computers that's not the issue because that's not context that the claims defined they improve networks we use as a tool for messaging they increase the utility of those this is the network is not merely used as a vehicle for our process our process is a relevant outside of a network because we are limited to messages only network we have a network controlling device we have access rules that  to and i know we're not a claim construction stage but bandwidth that's clearly supported within the within the specification your honor we're at the twelve b six level of you know and i know you know that but at this stage we don't have evidence to show that what we are doing in this context is not conventional there's nothing to show in the in the record that we're doing anything other than what the patent claims which is something beneficial to the industry adopted by and lauded by the industry needed an improvement over the bar if we had been it other than a twelve b six perhaps we would have evidence of that