when the district court regards decision nearly two years ago it did not have the benefit of this court's many intervening precedents applying alice particularly recent cases such as electric power and apple vs amaranth which are indistinguishable from this case if it had it would recognize that the claim to hear it here to a familiar formula which this court time again has found is ineligible for pat specifically the purported invention in this case is directed to the abstract concept of displaying an updat speed of the operation of the computer this is a case that is entirely unlike in fish where there was something that was inventive about the particular combination of software to change the functioning of the computer itself and indeed it competes have noted in stituting c m b r c b m or reviews here quote they do not contend the claimed invention somehow changes the way the computer functions and that's a depend externally one twenty seven there's nothing about these claims that change how the it used existing display technology it used existing programming techniques and that there was nothing that was inventive that was added to the abstract concept now i recognize that the district court here disagreed with us at both step one and step  but clearly when you look at this cords intervening precedence apple versus amaranth i think is a great example of this decided just at the end of november electric power as well as frankly vast c recognize the claims with more specificity than the claims at issue here were still nonetheless directed to abstract concepts now the d d r holdings and basket then went on and at step two found that there was an inventive step and the reason was because in those cases there was a specific particular algorithm that was disclosed and it was claimed in the claims themselves and the court recognized that this was not simply in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put but on a specific improvement in how computers carry out one of their basic since there is no improvement here to how computers carry out their basic functions is simply take a point and click display of any kind any grid you could use any kind of any kind of spreadsheet any kind of point and click technology what is different here is the that uses general from pure technology would not be half knowledgeable so for instance like the case we had last year chicago board and you say all you're doing is taking the very concepts that are used on the floor and putting them into basic computer technology but then you see that something as indeed your home there's a weakness and that computer technology and you take a new step in the computerization and inventor step to make that computer program work better can that then be computer eligible or papac knowledgeable even if the first stage was not sure i appreciate the question judge a million and let me be clear i i agree with the think what's implicit in your question i don't think this is a stock one case i think these this is directed to an abstract idea and the question then is is there something more that the supreme court has required and allison and mayor and i point you to this this court's opinion in affinity labs versus direct t v because i think it did addressed a somewhat similar issue and they're writing for the court judge bryson noted that quote no special there was no specification of particular technology for getting the desired content displayed and he said quote the essential advance is not in the process of that case it was downloading applications but only in the content of the particular application and i think that's what you have here there's nothing here that goes to an improvement of how the computer itself functions there's no i think i click and it happens aster there is no displaying of the information that happens faster there's a transmission of information and to come back to you to i think what your what's at the core of your question judge amelle this court applying supreme court precedent is made clear what is not sufficient to constitute an inventive step and there are three things in particular one isn't adding another abstract idea and certainly simply having a static price access which is what the district court pointed to as being the inventive step  step two is directed towards another abstract idea second is limited to a particular operating environment under supreme court precedent it's very clear that simply limiting it to a particular field is not  sufficient for an inventive step and the third and the one that this court has dealt with extensively in a number of cases over the last eighteen months is the implementation of generic conventional activity and particularly generic conventional computer activity and that's the that is again a fundamental difference between this case and did your holdings and basket and did your holdings this court recognized departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink you had a specific algorithm that changed the basic operation and here again you're taking any any  any display using any technology and this is a column for you can use any existing or future terminal or device it is to use quote some whole agot algorithms that's column for line sixty two of the one thirty two patent and  the mapping of the information to a screen grid can be done by quote any technique known to those skilled your column for line sixty six of the one three two pattern that is exactly generic conventional computer implementation and i think that makes this case indistinguishable from from amaranth and from electric power group and indeed in amaranth the court specifically noted that the use of conventional hardware and commonly known programming techniques even though it resulted with menus with specific features the menus were visually different than things that existed in the prior art but nonetheless i'm supposing it solves specific m because it's improving the computer operation well so first judge well like with respect it's in fish there is no improvement of the computer operation and i think that's an important distinction here to recognize that the implementation of the point and click technology on the this particular visual display does exactly what when click technology would otherwise do there is nothing remotely inventive about how the computer itself operates in response now the argument is well because you have visually laid out the information in a particular way than a human is going to react and be able to react more quickly or at least be able to react differently because of how the information is laid out now there may be other areas of intellectual property law that protects such a thing but it's not the type of thing that be sure the the computer to computer trading has differences from trading that happen on the floor and i'm certainly not arguing anything to the contrary what i am arguing are these are claims that are directed to the organization and display of court time and again it's found that that is directed towards an abstract concept and then the question is under the test that this court has repeatedly articulated is there something more here and the something more that they point to is either the static price access which is just another abstract concept or it is generic computer in for station of generic functionality and i would also note that the visual display of this information the way that they that they display it itself isn't something that is that is new or or inventive and indeed if you look at it if you look at the blue brief it's page thirty seven the right hand side you see for our systems the visual display the information a particular way is their idea here is to add existing generic point include functionality to it and i think under particularly amaranth and electric power that's indistinguishable from what this court found was not i'm happy to take more questions otherwise of reserve the balance of my time going to from there to say thank you ju that allowed prices to change during order creation the second is the district court's decision which properly recognized that after alice and d d r these claims are pattern eligible because they solve that unintended affinity labs the graphical user interface use there was purely conventional as that as the court said in that case there was no specification of a particular technology for getting the defined content displayed when you looked at the overall character of the invention in that affinity labs case which is what the court did they found that the invention was really too out of range streaming to cell phones that that was really the problem they said they solved and yet their claims did not explain how the out of range streaming happened and to the extent there was a generic graphical user interface reciting would it was just that a generic computer component which was not enough to provide a significantly more at step t i think we would have the same problem here if our claims stopped at the end of our preamble and if i could turn you to the claim language that's what i'd like to do next if we look at the three or four claimed one which point to you to read twenty to twenty one has that in prose and if you prefer the patent it's in the appendix at two twenty three so i think we would be just like affinity labs if our claim was to be just the preamble which says a method for displaying market information and facilitating trading and skipping some words on a graphical user interface certainly that alone is not an eligible and i think that's what the finity labs case stands for instead the claim recites much more and before i turn to that i'd also like to mention the electric power case which was mentioned as something new that the district court didn't have and i think it electric power the court drew the distinction very well by saying that  electric power the claims are not patentable presenting the results and i'm quoting electric power presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information without more and then in parentheses the court said such as identifying a particular tool for the presentation is abstract and so in electric power the court kind of drew this distinction which i think applies to affinity lads on one hand where the graphical user interface is simply a generic computer component that displays the results of this or the inputs needed for this out of the end streaming whereas in the trading technologies claims it is not at all because we have a gene of hooey that we're new we have an improved and if i can point you to the claims all explain what we need so looking at the first claim in three or four path at appendix a to twenty three or read twenty which ever is easier for you to read we talk about the  have been argued and are awaiting final written decision the final written decision in the three zero four case is due later this month january twenty seventh is the statutory deadline so any time between now and then and in that case actually the petitioner trading technology or the pattern or excuse me pointed out to the court to the board that the district court had found these claims eligible under one on one and the board said in a footnote when instituting anyway on one on one grounds that they gave little to in the patterns in figure two in the description so turning to the three or four claims we talk about structure make up in functionality this is all about how the gooey is the pieces of the gooey is kind of what we think of as the structure the make of this how those pieces are put together to form the gooey and then the functionality is what the gooey does and so if you look with me at the claim in the first claim element dynamic displaying dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of locations in a bi display region so i would say that first indicator and the big display region are both pieces of the structure other structure the pieces of the good we later in that same claim element a common static price axis in the next plane element we have a second indicator that is dynamically displayed in one of a plurality of locations in an ascii display region and then later in the claim we have in the fourth step displaying an order entry region indicator in the big display region the claim goes on to say that each location in the big display region corresponding to a price level along a common static price axis so that is talking about how the display region where the indicators can move is aligned and corresponding to price levels along the axis so we're talking about how these pieces are combined that's the make up the functional and that's carried out throughout the claims i would point to the third element displaying bid and ask to display regions those display regions are displayed in relation to fixed price levels positioned along the common static price axis so there's this combination of static price levels along the axis and then these big display regions that are displayed relative to them and then there's functionality as well so they're the pieces they're the way they're combined and then the functionality so in that third step and in claim one when the inside market changes the price level along a common static price axis do not move but at least one of the indicators in the big display as display region do move that's the relative movement and that's actually required by that point we understand what the claim and the question is whether they they do or not if you think they are better understand why force them to you know i think i think the argument is very strong under step one particularly in light of the court more recent decision that i really think the district court's decision was pressured here when you see that she applied alice and d d r which is what we had at the time and found that under d d r especially these claims improve  obviousness is not the question and i think she did that by looking back at the supreme court cases and particularly in alice where the court drew a line between a business method with generic computer which found not  inventions that purport to improve computer functioning or other computer technology that's the supreme court's language in alice they were pointing to those kinds of cases and i would say even in bills to be the court was talking about a concern over not taking necessary but if you do if it's a close call like a mass calm we can move to step two she said that she didn't need to look any further than when she started looking at the claim themselves the elements that the static price axis was  feature that provided the solution to the problem that the patents described and that i think if you look at the cases that's a common theme we see when you're looking for an inventive concept it's step two to figure out if it's enough is isn't the thing that solves the problem that's described in the computers and in the i'm sorry in the patent specification so in bass come for example where all of the elements were known individual the combination solved the problem the internet filtering problem that  described and that was enough here the judge properly noted that the static price axis and i would say among other things it's actually the combination of the static axis with the dynamic prices and the single action order entry this is a problem you need to single action order entry systems and with respect to preemption which is one of the things covering all and all implementations of the purported abstract idea i would point the court of course they're not binding but the court has previously looked at these patents before in the infringement context and found several times actually and found that some products do in french but other products are found not to infringe several others and there are others that are listed in the brief in the red brief that cases are all and they're writing many of them are very close calls i understand that and that's evidence by the sometimes dissenting opinions and sometimes very similar opinions i don't think this one is a particularly close call when you actually look at the claims and see the specificity which which with which the claims restate the these are for the particular pieces the structure of the gooey the way they are combined the makeup and the functionality all of that's required i'd like to discuss the amaranth case for a moment because that was discussed in the opening and i think that one can be distinguished at the easily as the others in that it had sort of a similar business method on a computer and in fact the court said specifically the invention merely claims the additional the addition of conventional computer components to well known business methods and while they talked about displaying menus and they talked about receiving parameters using an interface that was not detail that was not the invention the invention there was creating these menus finding better ways than using paper menus with waiters cans and pencils and and waiters memories that that was really the invention there so i think one of the things that is such a judgement call  determining the overall character of the invention and that's where the step one step two maybe is a little bit of an overlap but here to determine the character of the invention you look at the pattern as a whole it describes a very specific problem and the claims as a district court understand  understand understood correctly claim of a specific combination of features in the gooey that that solve that problem and to me that problem solution is a helpful framework for explaining and then to the point of the computer functioning the argument that these don't improve a computer functioning i think maybe what they're trying to say there is to improve peter technology you have to improve the computer processor you have to make the processor faster but that doesn't work at all if you look at this court's decision has found patentable improvements to a database improvements to and even d v r is an improvement to the web browser software didn't make the computer processor faster and so i think really the way to think about an improvement to a computer functioning that many of these inventions are groundbreaking when they first come out but after that we fall to that language and one on one where it's an improvement of right and here that's what we have an improvement over prior the gooey is a computer function it is a part of a computer the court has found their generic interfaces are not patentable it's just like a server by itself is not patentable or database that's not what this case it's i think this is the case that some of these others have been sort of pointing to as this is not that i have come over my again judgment so train technologies argument is that their claims are different from ones that have been found to not be patent ineligible because they require a specific good we with specific features where they solve problems that existed in is where i want you to focus is that that you know you get these brief and the arguments are crap and you think too bad the claims don't actually incorporate any of those great families things that there are about and so in this case you do have and you see that you're up against which is you actually have some detail claims that recite very specific things on like many of the others where you have the classic of wide open an ultra mercial yes the claims may be lengthy and there may be a lot of specific things that are in there but the specific things that are in there go to for example content they don't go to a technological innovation and so if you look at amaranth the court said quote the patents claim systems including menus with particular features there are very particular features that the claims require they had to have the nesting of these menus there had to be a linking of these menus but the court said quote they do not claim a particular way of programming we're designing the software to create the menus that have those features and thus were not hand eligible and that's that's what you have here i mean let's be clear for all their talk about structure what they're talking about is content the claims here require commodities trading using a gooey with generic point and click features the been programmed by any means with any generic tools operated on any generic computer using any generic screen displaying standard market information in a conventional format that is exactly the time and again this court has recognized is not sufficient in simply saying solving the problem that was disclosed in the specification saying with with with an older generation of technology you just said you know here's the one eight hundred number it's and you know the claim requires that it be in bold thought and stay up on the screen for a long period of time so users don't miss it so they can pick up  phone and make the call to make it make a trade that's what's going on here and indeed if you look at electric power group i think what it said in that case is is equally applicable here you have none of the hal that's required to be transformative in terms of the computer operation or any of the other technology dish you quote the claims that if you do not require any non conventional computer network or display components that's true here nothing in the claims understood in light of the specification requires anything other than off the shelf convention or conventional computer network and display technology and that was even for claims that specifically required quote displaying concurrent a visualization of two or more types of information which was supposedly novel in that case i think electric power group is thus in the sting wishful as is this  were in validity arguments and one of two one of the three and one twelve that had been issue at the cape in the case when the case was presented to the jury the strategic decision was made not to advance those arguments in front of the jury and  course partisan hat litigation make their strategic decisions every day and as your honor noted in the questions that you were asked to my my colleague the wanted to add one of the three and one twelve inquiry is utterly irrelevant so the the supreme court couldn't possibly be clear in parker versus fluke and diamond three three deer and mayo and so the fact that we did not advance those types of arguments has no bearing whatsoever on the one of one issues before the court to