of the five three six patent in fact i can only find the word static information once in the entire house and so where does the claim itself make it clear that what they are seeking to claim to be the only way to overcome the static information model this is just one way of addressing limitations with respect to the static information model but to address  governing interactions of the container with other containers according to the utility of information in the information element relative to an extreme and all to the apparatus event time and what that means is that the invention is designed to dynamically adjust these these register values according to constantly changing external to the apparatus event time and that's what the claim one  computer normally does your art of any computer application at base is designed to organize information it's also designed to to process information to change  values as as at the time in the space change so it's not just about taking information that exists and putting it in different places like files or boxes or you know these analogies that the defendants used but it's not the law has changed the organizing information but most of them in the last number of years have been found not to be eligible for a puppy you know i would say that this case is most like some of the in and fish in that opinion we stated that the claim articulated a precise exact concrete way to achieve more efficient  memory and the claim articulated the elements i mean one of the differences here is your claiming that these claims represent some improvement over static information in the form of dynamic information these claims nothing meaningful they never explain how the containers are created or manipulated how the dynamic interactive registers or nothing these claims are aspirational claims like so many of the others we've held invalid and or want to one i'm not saying there is inventiveness i'm saying it wasn't properly claimed according to today's standards and fish was whether we were right or not a case in which we said the claim itself articulate a specific way to achieve greater computer efficiency lists claim especially you went to the five three six which i would have to if i were you right it's your it's at least got some level of detail i mean the six a two is nothing but containers and in each of those containers you have container registers that are in capsulated but that's normal that's not i mean that's not unusual that's argued to be novel in anyway build on on what i was describing with claim one of these the container registers is a plurality of them have historic data that's associated with the interaction among the container and further when a search is done the historical data in each of these containers is searched and that results in some of the containers being identified as being responsive to the search query but that's not all the claim requires it it requires more well good because so far you've described nothing it's patent eligible so keep going what is the else the more it describes sure your honor the identify containers are then in capsulated in a new container and then inside of each of these containers that are encapsulated there is a second container register and that register is updated with the data associated with interactions of the identified containers of containers inside of the larger container with the larger container so in other words the a list of identify containers is provided that is a highly specific claim each of those elements of course has to be satisfied in order for there to be infringement and with that in of in doesn't exist any longer but you understand my point if i told them to go do a search based on historical data go find me the t rex how is that any different from what you just articulated was your claim but the fact that it's all on a computer you can narrow the claim by limiting it to on a computer when the supreme court has made clear that doesn't save claims any longer you know are you no transformation or title machine went out the window  sill i don't know how how is what's claimed here these registers in a computer which contain particular types of data and are therefore search any different from my kids that have shelved the difference and that metaphor your honor is that the t re is not interacting with a container and the t rex does not have a dynamic register that is updated to account for the interactions between the t rex and a larger container so in the context of the six eight to patent it and that's where the defendant analogies fail also the defendant talked about searching in libraries so for example you could imagine searching a library for a certain subject matter and finding responsive books and putting them in a container and so far it might sound like i'm talking about the claim one of the six a two but it requires more it would require that these books that have been identified have registers that actually update dynamically as the books interact with the container and so that's where that is and it isn't that with the card that the bag keeps a record of who's checked it out well your honor there's there's no interaction between the book and the container that would result in the car being updated so no the point that i wanted to focus on the master with interaction with the container is i guess the language here is so unbelievably abstract and opaque it's hard to even think about but it means an intuitive terence but i guess i took what it meant was if you take the book out and you put it in a cart that's the container and then you write down what carts it's been a which is a saying my cart and judge moore score card and there's a record in the book of the containers it's been with why is that what does it mean for the for the identify container to interact with the container that that has in capsulated it or your honor it could mean exchanging data for example so i write my name in the cart on the boat or the librarian has checked it out to us i understand that but but your honor that it's not the container itself but the container interacting with with the book that someone taking the book out of the container and writing information that's just completely distinct from that was my little satchel containing the seven books i checked out that morning not container capsule i think it is well your honor first of all the even by the defendant's own claim constructions a container has to has to deal with with digital data it's a computer term they said that it needs to be logically defined but in a setting that aside and let's assume that you know for the sake of argument that a satchel is a container that's still doesn't meet the limitations of the requirement because satchel cannot communicate with the book cannot interact with the book there's no exchange of data processing going on and there's no different prior art references all of which process containerized data that's undisputed and the patent office found after a lot of analysis that none of those prior art reference least fifteen different ways of processing containerized data that do not run afoul of the patents and to my knowledge your honour's this is the only case in which this argument has been made that when there are so many different samples of of prior art that practice in the field of vision without running afoul of it there can be no preemption distinction the distinction between whether or not it's simply organizing information or improving the functioning of a computer so the way i understand it your honor in the end fish case as well as in micro and d d r these were problems that existed only the argument and fish was that because it was a means plus function claim they actually brought the algorithm from the specification into the claim itself and that algorithm for setting up these data structures included the mandate of it being a referential data table so the table would work faster and use less memory because it was self referencing itself within the computer itself and i think i understand what was happening and fish what i'm trying to understand worth looking for is language that captures and intuition is a pretty strong intuition that something is different and fish about the internal organization of a generally available computer capability and that claim is about that as opposed to the use of current computer capabilities which also involves programming and i'm looking for the language that helps identify that intuitive distinction so for this case i think that the language that can help is the notion of exactly how broad the claims are in both camps because both patents talk specifically about containers and registers and it sounds like it might be specific and it might have some form structure but if you look at the specification the specification calls the container anything from end that's to all of cyberspace and that's actually within the patent top and inclusion of column nine and then looking specifically at lines five through one hundred a container at a minimum a capsule it's a single digital bit of say five through one five through approximately nine and it talks about a container being anything from a single bit to all of cyberspace into all containers that could ever be defined in cyberspace including cyberspace that hasn't been created and then further in column twelve that line forty five it says that containers can include and other containers to infinity the register themselves are also deemed to be nothing more than values something like a name or a rule and that's at column nine lines fourteen through seventeen and so what we have here which i think can help your honor is the notion that a container can be anything and include anything even other containers and the registers can be anything any value so long as it in some way identifies what's happening then the only specificity we have for the registers are that they be potentially based on time or on location and then were directly into the i v one case which in which this court held that location based organization of information or using location in order to deliver more information was in fact an abstract idea and so i hope i hope that helps your and i think those are pieces of language you can use from the claims to distinguish it from end fish which was something very specific is self referential table because of the means plus function claim versus the overwhelming breath of the claims and containers that can be anything with registers that can be anything other than fatah possibly time and space which i the one has told us is absolutely abstract and so this case is much more like i v or d here is that but we're adding in the information to something else that in digital act the court found that that combination of new material into another form that could be used later was also abstract and finally i have a question  this claim were interpreted as being a specific concrete improvement to or i should say change in how computers record and retrieve data because that's kind within a computer would allow well for a much more efficient search process for example to take place every time across all computers because this really went to the heart of computer memory and if that were the nature of the we wouldn't that be like and i don't believe so your honor and the reason i say that is because this is simply improving a search not improving a computer and there's a very big difference between that to your honor's example of trying to find a toy in a bucket if for example the dinosaur got a red sticker on it every time your son used it to show that it was his favorite animal and the red sticker therefore made it more obvious and easier to find that's exactly what is happening here you're just making the search a little bit faster a little bit easier by putting things in a location that might be more convenient you're not improving the computer at all you're just using a computer in order to you what have you got not moving that computer and fish was a software case yes that improved the functioning of the computing improving the computer you make it seem like it is a static object capable of being improved absent a user's interaction with it which clearly it is the computer didn't look better with the enter software in it that it did without it wasn't some sort of a static thing or otherwise it was the computer functioned more efficiently what does that mean that means when a user interacted with it it did something faster better with less memory whatever how is that different from something that would dramatically improve search capability for example whether it be on the internet or through the computer memory or something like that why i don't i don't understand the distinction you're drawing between searching and what was that issue in and fish for example your honor what was an issue in and fish was whether or not because of how the data structure within the computer itself would  outside of computers and simply being able to put things in but it is not going to reduce the memory that's being used or the memory that's going there look for example not going to reduce the memory but it could it could dramatically improve the speed  which the computer operates to execute the command that you're searching for but then that would be no different from the i v case from accenture from detect from ultimately from all of these other cases where it might have been easier to get to the information and therefore it could have been faster to figure out which program to show somebody based on their location based on their time by virtue of the fact that you're using a computer i don't think that the computers being sped up here at all in fact all we're doing is we're giving a result it's not a faster search result except for the fact that it's on a computer it's better because it's the idea that but i'm giving you the one that has historic information associated with it there's nothing anywhere in the claims or in the patent talks about this being faster or in some way making the computer better instead it just says i'm going to try to get you the best piece of information based on time rules location put i mean put that way  one could as easily say hey this is actually faster and less use of computer resources to get to where the user wants to get if you first give a kind of undifferentiate dump of largely irrelevant information then you're going to get a follow up query and you can do it again and again so if the computer says i know you i know what time of day it is i know you're in downtown washington you've used less of the computer resources to get to the end of the necessary transaction but then that you are is no different from the t l i case in which you got a large dump of information about a photo which included the photo itself as well as in about the photo and then you were extracted the metadata about the photo and stored it so that in the future when you wanted to find that photo again you could just ask for pictures about the birthday party instead of having to wade through all of the pictures and the court found that to be a well because it was simply reorganizing data so that someone could go and grab it that's not that is a fundamental human behavior that existed prior to the computer in the fact that you're using a computer which can eventually speed it up is only in its general purpose way it's not improving the computer at all it's simply using the computer for its general purpose on general purpose components and here the patent owner has admitted that all of the components that are being used are general purpose components including containers registers gateways and values and so the computer is not being improved upon at all all this is potentially a better way of organizing the information so that someone can maybe access it more simply not so th computer is working better and that is exactly what all of the cases content extraction digit tech accenture i v etc talk about in terms of if all you're doing is reorganizing data so that it can be pulled up more quickly or pulled up in a different fashion that is not something that is eligible for patentability instead those are abstract ideas of using human behavior to reorganize data so that we can access it a little bit more simply and that's why judge white down below use the example of a librarian or even for example a barista who sees you walk into a coffee shop and realizes that you have a latte normally but when it's christmas time you get a pumpkin spice latte and that's just an update of the registers and up to the information and that's age old human interaction that should not be patentable and i don't think there's anything in the claims it takes it out of that route and unless your daughters have any other questions thank you ms cleaver thank you very much couple of minutes leave you two minutes to the extent that this patent is about reorganizing data one would say exactly the same thing about the patent in fish of that patent involve the self referential database tables and all it did  various different tables that were in the relational model where you had separate tables and you combined them into a single table and this essentially reorganizing information but this court held that that was eligible  and noted that it was eligible because it resulted in faster searching and as counsel said smaller memory requirements and finally increased flexibility in in configuration so if there's any argument that these patents are an ineligible because they reorganize information the same argument would would have been true in in fish the main point that i think has been not addressed so far is the patents discussion of the problem that it was trying to solve which is a static information model the patents described at l seven different drawbacks with the static information model and it's clear by the specification that that is what the patents are trying to address the district court did not properly evaluate that we offered an expert opinion that carefully evaluated the static information model described how the patents are designed to overcome that and stated that the patents are designed to address a problem that is squarely within the domain of computers