please the court i'd like to start off by saying that this is an atypical case because the specification here doesn't really talk about the prior art it doesn't provide guidance about what problems existed in the prior art or what was conventional as opposed to what was unconventional in the prior art here though the district court ruled without any discovery that any guidance in the record either way about what was  ventional or what was problematic in the prior art that the claims do not solve a technological problem and that only conventional activities claim which is really the cla claim itself could be relied on to determine what was conventional i wouldn't say that that's necessarily the case it's not like the claim says this is what was done in the past where this is what the prior art has seen or this was what was well known now the claim maybe you might be able to infer that the claim is describing what's not well known that's what it claims to be about but i don't think that it would be fair to say that you could infer that what is claimed is well known from the claim it court subsequent to the magistrate judge judge's opinion in the atrix case stated that made it clear that this may not be the case that in at least in some instances amendments whether you said if we had been granted the opportunity to amend here's what we would have added to the complaint we didn't specify it we generally stated we would have added allegations related to what was conventional and what was not conventional a little hard for us to evaluate in the abstract whether an amendment would have been futile without that the claims do not only result in stating a problem or a setting result but they also clearly state a way of achieving it taking for example point five of the one  patent it requires interacting with monitoring monitoring monitoring devices to alter a map and that the alteration be a function of location interaction rules as modified by user interaction th dependent claims specify the rules that would apply so this is also as specificity to the way of achieving the claimed result your we also extended the claims do not merely disclosure merrick devices performing generic functions we've argued that display devices interacting with monitoring devices that are capable of determining a user interaction with a location which is required by most of the claims is inventive and unconventional and you know if we were provided runners which were provided the opportunity to amend we would make allegations related to this as being unconventional activity and the best anything in the record that contradicts this other than of the judge's order would be attorney argument several depending claims also add  this scenario i think there's an example a specification that shows that more information could be shown on the map if a person is that a particular location etc that kind of an embodiment so we contend t at the very least we think we are entitled we should be entitled to seek leave to amend the complaint to address these issues i think that one kind of underlying issue as well as here the judge services has never identified any problem that these patents and the inventions they purportedly contain attempt to solve likewise despite numerous opportunities the pla has never identified how in particular these purported inventions report to solve those problems we are left to guess that and that in this course jurisprudence helps us to understand that these are the very abstract ideas that's exactly right your honor the claims that have been found patent eligible by this court in addressing want to one always identify how something is done not simply what is being done and the fundamental problem with the claims in these patents is that they repeatedly describe what is to be done but they never give any indication of how that is to be done so for example when they refer to a monitoring device that provides information about a user it stops and says have a monitoring device that provides information about a user but it never describes how that is to be done and never gives us anything to examine about whether that would be novel or not obvious it's just the idea of monitoring device that provides information about a user the second point your honor or your honour's is that despite numerous opportunities l b s has never identified any fact questions that have to be resolved in order to determine the patent eligibility of any of these claims it did not do so in the district court did not identify any fact issues it did not seek to amend the claims he did not submit any factual information or evidence as part of the motions and then once on appeal before this court although would ask the court to give it the courtesy of a re man it can't identify a single question a factual issue they would have to be resolved by the federal district court in determining the issue the court affirm the dismissal in judgment of the district court unless there are any further questions thank you very much are you mr snyder mr muslim has a similar bottle time concede that the specification doesn't identify a particular problem but we have argued in our briefing that what the invention does is add new functionality to electronic maps that previously didn't exist and in that respect we would say solves a problem with preexisting electric map or electronic maps and then as with respect to the fact question again i think we are invent