please the court my argument will focus on two points st point try place template claims are directed to a novel solution that improves computer fish and sea into a one hit reduces the need for the device capability the court's high level characters ation the claims as directed to the abstract idea of converting and forwarding messages was air it was untethered to the concrete claim limitations giving rise to the inventions computer eligible at step one where the focus of the claim is a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer and i ask you something i understood that your st technical improvement is it improves the computer processing and makes it easier for computer processing in his or her i'm not saying it exactly the way you do because of the use of templates kruk but i think the response that is made that by the p that is what we invented was a particular use of templates with unique identifiers and so the templates are associate with a particular content and because the templates are defined as a particular complex khan site with a particular content and because there is a unique identifier associate that when the system receives the message it reads that unique identifier and thereby once it reads that unique identifier it knows the content of the message it's not any use of templates one of the arguments it's made is that the benefits of templates are you know in any contests provide us i mean that's just not true just to take a  routine example we all might know when we go to send a message to microsoft outlook we get a template to fill in information but that's not the patten it's not a social with an unique identifier it's not used in the context of a particular messaging system to provide particular benefits a computer before it can do the conversion of a message from one format and layout type to another needs to know what the content of the message and that requires the computer to execute instructions to ascertain what actually is in the message before it then moves on to the stop doing the conversion and by virtue of the fact that this system design a messaging system process that included a template with a unique identifier soon as the message you system receives that thing in one stop it knows the content of the message so that's the st benefit that i and now the computer knows i know which template to use right because i've got you know i've got to write so my computer could have three or four templates in order to generate a different kind of memo for example but that templates are not part of a whole integrated design which what is what we have here which is messages are defined based on templates and they have a unique identifier associated and built into the messaging system is the receipt of that identif which points to what the content of the message is injury an argument that by having templates and unique identifiers that creates advantages specifically with respect to converting the message from one format to another it has two benefits so the st benefit is in the prior art without this invention the st thing a messaging system has to do when it receives the message is execute computer have you know we have memo format opinion format letter format right and we call them a b c right and so a message that sent with the the words that will no we're not because what we're talking about here is a message and system it's dealing with the problem of different devices with different capabilities and different types of content so the messaging system sits in the middle of the risks of the sending device and the receiving device and it's what it does is it has to ascertain what that content it's not just it has to know whether we're talking is a video is a picture what kind of format it is what sort of objects i have to deal with and in that type of a system without a template that defines what that content structure it's a system has to execute a number of instructions the figured out and that's why the patent referred to this is novel and referred to the advantages over the prior art as a reduction in need for content analysis because by constructing this system with a template or you can fire as soon as it receives that identifier it knows all the details and then more and more importantly but also the other part of the invention is because the system has templates with particular contact it has the ability to generate in advance destination communication device so this is the step that happens after the very st up which is receiving a message that has a template and unique identifier so at the st stop it knows the content of the message and because it knows the content it can have predefined layouts and example of those in the specification to show what we're talking about is that table to appendix fifty five dollars which is this idea of each template type you have a different layout depending on the device capability now without this it would be necessary in the prior art to generate the layout on the fly because you have no idea what your income and content i well so if we just go back to the def the the message template here if we want to turn for example to appendix fifty is a message template is used in the patent specification should be expansive also worked for example as we talked about at table one which shows exemplary templates with content structure and the whole nature of this invention is about defining messages pay based upon you know what what what content is going to be in finding them in advance so i mean part of the claim here when we're talking about a layout which is just basically was construed if i remember correctly as basically a visual representation we're just talking about was the term template was construed template hasn't i just reading the it wasn't separately construed from the definition of it's in the specification which i just read layout was construed to be a visual representation so what we're talking about here we're talking about a a message having  layout based on a template it means that the we're defining the elements that are in that message based upon a template and because we've defined elements that are that template consistent with therefore know what's in the message that's why the patent talks about a reduction in need for content analysis because we have that content in advance this court erred in finding conventionality as a matter of law this case is at the pleading stage and as this court decision and per common a trick to make clear whether a combination of elements would have been well understood routine and conventional to a skilled artisan is a question of fact in those cases also emphasized that the challenger bears the burden to come forward evidence that the additional elements will are well understood routine and conventional for example in the mission the spec or otherwise a particular significance here the represent him claim nine of the sixty seven dollars with before and i p r which wasn't instituted in there were six total references that were brought three of them to read on the template they keep arguing that this is conventional it was not conventional to design a messaging system around a template with a unique identif and there's no evidence to support that and further supporting our position is the magistrate judges detail step two analysis was set up numerous reasons supporting its conclusions of conventionality could be decided as a matter of  the district court judge identified i'm sorry the magistrate judge identity identify numerous issues of conventionality we submit they haven't come forward any evidence to show conventionality all the evidence points the other way we haven't i p r in which they put forward six references and it wasn't instituted three of them so went to the template points we have they haven't come for with any evidence of conventionality they've cited a variety of a couple of cases that mention a template in passing but as the district court judge said in his decision those template decisions are different and that difference further supports that it's non conventional here we just basically have the district court saying well this is a benefit of templates in any context and we submit that's not the case did you preserve this argument that claim includes the basic concept of receiving messages converting them so that they can be compatible with the recipient and it recites certain components and access blocks and immediate just to quote right we found that those are just functionally so really what we're dealing with here is do the other three claims at issue tacked on enough stuff to change the conclusion for those claims and i just ask you i guess is it has a doctrinal or procedural or preclusion you don't get i don't know what's the doctrine if if if that's what you're saying and you may not be saying that i think we're essentially saying that in the following way in their brief they didn't raise an issue that anything about claim well that's that's a that's a simpler much simpler for i think so i think that really it's it's ok for that against to abandon arguments you know only present to us what they think is their best argument right sure isn't here they are presenting to u anything about quite why there are going really emphasizing the templates in the unique identifier exactly and saying there are specific technological busy busy improvements based armor that technology that they've developed exactly torture is finds that the response to that is electronic messages in a receipt mechanism using a rules engine to match the attributes of the incoming messages and look at an attribute match it to a rule to determine how to output it and then you output it to the will help them right and we can see exactly what they're claiming your honor as the inventor of concept at page forty seven of their brief that's where they walk through the suppose it benefits of these templates and the suppose it benefit number one is that it allows for reduced content analysis on the front end you get a form in a certain number of you know where the stuff is going to be so that you can very easily done on the back end outport it in a in a predefined that's what number one number two they're saying are the benefits here and we know those aren't improvements in computer technology from what this court has set for example another playing in the semantic case had a file content identifier that allowed t system to immediately look at that identifier know whether it was spam and then know how to deal with this court said no that's an abstraction what about it so your argument is that the unique identifier itself assigning  identifier to a template in itself is an after idea yes yes and including that within even all the steps that they point to it page forty seven dollars recognizing it based on that and then doing taking some action based on that  abstract concepts that aren't rooted in computer technology and that's not how the law works every invention starts with a concept and the fact that it is implemented with steps that are novel in whether the exact steps in this claim are found somewhere in the prior arc is of quote no relevance this court found in the semantic case and is repeated that in several cases and so what that means is we can assume for purposes of this argument  one i agree with your honor and then the supreme court in alice resolved exactly that question so the question becomes what is a significant enough inventive concept to satisfy the alice test and so what we have are this court's benchmarks for example the internet patents court case in that case it was claims directed to conserving storing data in the internet context so that when a user went back and forth within a browser it maintain the context and  and notably in that case the claims involved templates they also involved icons that were clickable and this cork looked at those additional limitations and said those are just kind of routine out on the underlying process what how do you respond to the specific argument that that is a technical improvements to the communication system by reducing the amount of time it takes for the computers to process the conversion but putting aside this court has already seemingly rejected exactly that argument semantic i think the answer would be that it's directly analogous to conduct that is very familiar to humans for example take this court's form number nine when this court or the clerk's office specifically receives for number nine which has the c e o i information on it separate of interest it immediately knows by the number or the title what this is and what the information is it where i'm going to find it the clerk's office can then take that convert it into another format for the purposes of the members of the court so that they know if there are conflicts of interest and sheet on top of the case materials that reads almost identically on the claims that they're relying on here the template claims you have a template coming in you recognize it you know what format it's going to go out and you convert it so that you don't have to think about it you just do it and so by analogy that's that's the way this court proceeding cases like content extraction like symantec like the st capital one case where it said if this looks basically like things that humans have done it isn't enough to just take it and set it in an electronic context whether it's doesn't mean that all the steps in their claims were included in the prior art that's not the inquiry what it shows is that templates were well familiar to those in the art and so putting them together in a you know in a different order of steps doesn't suddenly  patent doesn't disclose that assigning identifier template is conventional or does it no i don't believe it does ok i don't believe it does but we know that's just putting a label on something whether it's a person's name whether it's a courthouse recognize that coming in exactly the benefits and the steps that they're asserting somehow make these claims inventive decisions at the i p r and with adult relying on a broad assertion that any determination is under one hundred and two and one of three are irrelevant to why no one stated that broadly that can't possibly be right understood your arm so here's how i approach that question i would say let's let's assume that there are novel and non obvious over the prior art for purposes of this argument and in fact that was the exact situation in samantha there was a jury finding that the claims were in fact novel and nano knocks over the prior art and nonetheless the court said we're going to look at  distinct in court this court has said that there may be some overlap between the two and what i think this court means is that at some conceptual level both look at things that came before him but there are distinct tests one of two looks for the exact elements in the prior art when the three looks whether you combine them obviously including i think that this is the point that is in my head i guess i want to know what you think about it in one hundred and two thousand one hundred and three you look for what's in the prior art even if that thing in the prior art is itself abstract correct and i think your point here is that these things that are asserted to be inventive are abstract so it doesn't matter if they're new or not obvious precisely wrong and that's what the essay p case stands for in that case the and that's not enough on the pleadings in cases like internet patent score into a media where to your honor's point about other proceedings including ph as we see tings in that case there was an assertion by the patentee that you should have considered this expert testimony o novelty and you should have considered p t o proceedings relating to novelty non obviousness in this court said well that's a little bit different and so the district court was right not to rely on those and for the same reason here those same things don't create a fact  just like there weren't fact issues in the thirteen or so cases decided on the pleadings here since they tricks or the thirty six or so that have been decided here on the pleadings since alice i would like to address one point on the video plans with my my friend and focus on but i did want to call out one thing in their reply brief and we didn't have a chance to respond to a page six they say that it's undisputed it's undisputed that the claims require our require the system to be able to replace the incoming video with a link in the outgoing video and i just want to clarify that that's that is inaccurate if you look at the claim construction here  supplemental to the full video or stands alone but ultimately it doesn't matter but it's easy to resolve that issue at the st level because all of the benefits that they assert the saving  larger so if the claims don't even clue that you don't need to get to those but obviously we'd be told why we think even if you get to the rest it's exactly like infinity labs in other cases where there are links to videos and if the court has no further questions so a couple points emphasize one this is about the company's steps a combination of a number of elements that arrive at the convention they reference internet it's like to reference in references in our  said there's nothing in that decision to show that the template had anything to do with the invention of maintaining state and after analyzing the various cases they cite it concluded that it only strengthened his view that these are not conventional because the references that they're citing to are all very distinct in your honour's right these are all unique fact questions fact appended so i'm going to get to some of the other points the whang reference that they used to say that templates were conventional it cited in the in the background all that described is creating a message with a template doesn't talk about how you can identify or doesn't talk about it i mean you know it identifier is just give me a way of knowing that what i'm looking for temp lates i get the right one bit but it's been your honor it's the it's the whole design of this system that involves the idea of designing a messaging system where you start out with a set of predefined messages that have contents structure associated with them and attach them to unique identifier and because of that idea flowed the benefits and that's what the court needs to look at at some level from our perspective this feels like they're trying to jam a one of three argument into want to one that they're what they're really saying to the court is well i'd templates around everywhere and when somebody else of thought of this but nobody else didn't think of it you know that what's happened at the has a concrete benefit i mean nobody's arguing or maybe this sort of arguing but the clear benefits of reducing the need for confident health is in allowing adopted layouts to different  template types because you know what's coming in advance or all benefits well from this idea the reference to the court forms system i'm not even sure how that even applies here forms have been used as long as computers have been around to load information that can be populated and database and it's not even clear to me what this court does with those forms or how they work but it's not a messaging system they're not being sent to some other person nobody's doing a conversion of it there's not a reference of i think mr bell we've heard to a conversion in the sense of taking the information in fields and then using it for among other things conflict checks well yeah reports or whatever but that's that's a concept of preparing form so information gets loaded consistently in a database of somebody can run a report it's been around forever and something totally different then this then this one of the things i'm struggling with a little bit is that it's construed you could at any kind of praise a user user interface related to the content and or way out to play that template comprises preexisting tack and or spaces to refill enter media items and or elements i mean the claim limitations have to be viewed in light of the specification and nowhere in here before standing here today was there an objection raised that while these templates don't include content where in the claims that issue is there i think judge though is asking you about six of the multimedia nature of what's being transmitted and templates for that where where is that found in the claims at issue the well i mean it refers to the idea of i mean the whole the whole background the discussion the invention is an invention to deal with cross platform messaging of different device capabilities and it refers to here the idea  if we look at claim six and going to line nine where it says the media block is further configured to select before transmitting at least one message format in the layout for each of the at least message formats fitting to each of the least one destination devices this is all regarding the notion that messages are being received with different media items and different devices have different capabilities and the whole discussion in the patent that even precedes the template discussion which describes the meshes it's generally talks in significant detail about receiving different a a trance code or for example a transporter is designed to convert messages from certain formats to other formats and includes a message manager that there's certain if we want to look for example of the quickest way i can answer your question is if we go to appendix forty for example  which is figure eight and so it shows a media block there including a transcoder and a message manager and there may be another piece in there that i'm forgetting about but this is the  of the of the messaging system that receives messages of different types of content and has a transcoder in there to convert from one format to another and again we didn't we're not claiming to invented the transcoder but were invented all these pieces of the messaging system that has it and i am i right that when you talked about templates in the context of a multimedia transmission well what what what what wang refer into a temple and that's all the information we have but it's not showing that the concept of having a unique identifier so the messaging system knows what's in the message it can provide the benefits and as this court sent in burke time or the mere fact that some part of a thing may be referencing a piece of prior art doesn't render it conventional because again we're talking about the the particular arrangement here that that provides