computers vers  over and above those disagreements i just mentioned in first part of the district court in its order said it considered individually that the elements did not enough for the second prong of of alice that's it cleans are clear enough and that it's proper to do a trial we see this court has done that in the past what i would say that one thing that distinguishes this case from all those cases is that the seven three was that before alice i just don't recall i don't i don't know if it was affirmed i don't i don't believe it was that it was it was materially different analysis but you think i was to change the facts and the court considered it didn't give proper oh well it mention the finding but it just didn't give it any weight and that's that's improper under twelve be the history the seventy nine patent is a factor that shell itself should compel reversal on twelve believe the court wants to consider the facts can i you're you're saying a lot of things but not really understand what you're saying yes let me give it a try ok you'll tell me if i've got it you're saying the seven three nine already withstood an entire validity challenge prior art based one of two one of three type thing all the way through appeal jury verdict all the way through jame all appeal right yes and so what you're saying is the extent of the second the court's opinion is really due for a of factual findings that would support its conclusions and we think that that's an error that really puts meaning for you by the score there are some conclusions about conventional and confusion conclusions about other things but there are there are the facts aren't there to support them i think i think some good evidence of that is that if you look if we pointed out that in the brief that was filed by police they tried to bring in some new evidence from an article from a book that even before the district court to try to alter that because the facts simply just aren't there in addition the district court didn't address the issue presented preemption which we think is just here and also compels reversal it was it was raised by play with computers in its briefing an argument it just wasn't addressed and in the in the court's opinion and we believe under your mail analysis all the decisions that are in play today that you have to address preemption find fault with this record ok that those are things we think that compel error because it will the problem is the district court didn't give proper consideration because it ignored so many things it didn't apply the test correctly but in terms of on the issue of an abstract idea the district court gave an overgeneralized notion that was erroneous when it said creating a customized proposal for a customer that just that just ignores the just especially if claim  claim one of the seven three nine patent we have elements like automatically selecting integrating into a single composite visual act of output and the involvement of an actor database and a static case the court just didn't watch you know also the courts characterization and it seems more directed to claim a claim sixty one seven seven six patent and really seems to ignore claim one of the seven three nine patent which has more meaning  of the appellant or the police which were just arguments there was no evidence to support them that this was all conventional or somehow prevalent when it just simply was not the problem that was meant to be solved here was that  of static pictures and a rolodex that's that's very far afield from the claimed invention here and these and these meaningful limitations that just simply were not given proper consideration by the court with respect to the said seven three nine patent the automatically selecting is something to distinguish is is is is inventive that the single composite visual output is something that inventive and again the static databases and the dynamic building are all running building of the template and and dynamic filling in of the template are all things that are inventive that just simply work they didn't make it into the district for statement of abstract problem the prior arc by automatically selecting these elements in response to two customer questions and putting them into second single composite outlook from these acting static databases and from and if you build a template dynamic building the the proposal now you have a tailored presentation it's much more effective for the customer this isn't a situation where before computers you know that if you just added a computer to it because computers were around sitting down with customers for for anything and say what do you want and then boy back coming back with the with a proposal that was tailored to the specific answer questions th go get a model i'm going to take a picture out of the setting they lie and then we're going to do it that way but that's just simply wasn't done because it was just simply not practical to do it and it wasn't sensible to do it even though we had computers and tell us this invention and came up with this into an otherwise patent eligible idea but it's but it's not just speed it's not just speed it's this is a this is a transformative claim in that it's doing something very different it's it is making automatic environment you pick a picture and then you have to text with it so part of this is all done dynamically and automatically and there isn't a database with respect to claim number one of the seven three nine which is static and there's a database that is active the active database can contain for example customer information your address your phone number things that change the standing that a base contains pictures that are static pictures we have a mountain a beach and a two patterns basically say that there is a series of questions that the conjurer the decision maker the series of questions asked of the customer and the customer answers those series of questions and then based upon only one answer to those question one answer there is a there is a picture environment that you return there is a picture on top of the environment of the returned and then there is a text message that is for time so you could only answer one binary question or it could be that do you like a blue suit or do you like a gray suit or if you say gray i show you in gray graduating from from high school or so you grade graded law school or shade of gray suit at a wedding and different environments the background each of which has the customer from each i put it on a plate and i give it to you that's exactly what the tax count for and because of this abstract idea of customer sales proposals the limitations do not make it into an event of such a matter in this is the classic alice case where you have an abstract matter on a computer there's nothing about these two claims that say somehow what makes it different on a computer if they just say quote electronically quote dynamically quote automatically and that's why why does that evidence or that for that matter tend to suggest that if you actually wanted to find evidence in the world of totally different is different i mean i thought the mayor said he's actually do have some overlap we're not going to drain one know one of content just because there's a fair bit of overlap with one of two one of three and maybe even one twelve there nevertheless remains a function but in that conventionality aspect of one of one has to do with what people were doing in the world to look at is this an abstract idea here we think it's undisputed based upon alice malan between the fifth and bilski and the other presidents before the by this court if this is an abstract idea of target marketing creating customize proposals and based upon the presence of this before there is no limitation in these patents that is not already been decided by this court as just not invoking and that is subject matter and because of that your honor we ask th through that paragraph defines forty five but it the specification talks about a picture of building blocks used and because you have this combination of pictures for a finished template they don't have to be pr much as other limitations that should have been considered by the court at the council said that the plaintiffs trying to preempt certain things well one of the one of the problems was the court the district  future maybe that maybe the prior jury didn't get the best prior are but the bottom line is that these are these are factual issues and the overlap is is substantial very substantial in terms of the but but not so early that material facts that are out there are just disregarded by the court and the twelve emotion that's that's what's one of the things inappropriate here so you know there was talk about this it's a fundamental business assertion and the bottom line is that it's not a fundamental business practice the what the court what the district court referenced was somebody having a bunch of static pictures in a rolodex and for example as we just pointed out in the it with the district court said well i could have a static pictures and i could just pick which static picture i want based upon a dynamic would be that you build it you can put the product in the environment dynamically you don't have to go out and take another picture  done and that's just simply wasn't the district court just didn't seem to appreciate that it didn't really address in its opinion and then again i go back to lack of factual findings it just gives this court very little to that it could have polled on other than just there there are factual disputed matters including put in play by the other one of three rulings in the hundred case that should have precluded the district court's ruling and you know on those grounds and the other grounds i discussed  should be reversed and the district courts of the if either ordered simply reversed or the middle of the district court should be given a chance to consider to apply the correct test to make sure that the claim to consider as a whole to make sure the prince analysis is done and then also the district court have the opportunity