we have one face this morning think you may have please the court the invention here was identity owner control over the use of their identity over computerized transaction networks let me have a simple way to question yes because because the  computer transaction networks and the solution the main solution at the time in two thousand and five was something like life lock a reactive method that would monitor transactions that would take place and store the information analyze then this the proposal was to design a system that would solve the problem of identity fraud over these networks they did it by adding structure to a network and that structure included a separate pathway between the identity owner the holder of or the owner of say assets connected to the identity and the user which was a bank or credit card company or and specific information in the communications that's right but but but i think the computer computer hardware is operated based on software so a structure that's limited in a certain yes but that and the technology that was used included the addition of a service provider to a conventional transaction network of the kind that had the problems with life lock a reactive system the user in the best position to know who might want to be accessing the assets for instance patient records money credit report would prepare a template and that's in the claims it's really phrase at the beginning of the background discusses the credit card fraud transaction problem credit cards were operated over a computer transaction that works but the question here isn't what's new rd something is happening to verify a relationship between the two players players are trying to use the so we have an identical owner here a user of their bank credit reporting agency hospital holding their records something like that and then you have a source that wants to access the money or the patient records or the credit history so there's already a three dollars party system to begin with the service provider is added somewhere up here with the separate pathway over to the user to then control use of the identity of the the picks up the phone and call the credit card owner and you are running it what's different right so the difference there is that's the user that's the use and it's the same thing as what's happening in the kind of what's happening in the prior art where you have somebody looking at a transaction that's taken place and then oh buying something suspicious i call down to the bank when i say owner is going to the user they're going to the user and the user is at the top of the decision hierarchy to determine whether use will take place we are adding something to that structure with the service for service provider the will well the condition for all of the examples of the conditions for use our gas station from five pm to six pm when i'm driving home from work i don't want anyone else charging something on my credit card outside of those hours but but but this was the inventor was not trying to cover those types of arrangements they had the ability to call their credit card company cut up the credit card if they wanted to he wasn't doing that he came out of software engineering implementing credit card processing systems at banks he knew that the user was at the top of the dice decision hierarchy right now even though they could actually agree upon some that's part of it we're also arguing that there is additional structure here that wasn't in wasn't in conventional practice the additional computer at the service provider location in the pathway between the identity in a separate pathway between the identity owner and the user and that let me just finish about the service provider because i can see a lot of skepticism here so that service provider needs to needs to receive parameters from the user specifying both identification information and conditions for use the user did not have access to those conditions in the examples i think you're talking about i get the impression the user is going to maybe be aware of those conditions to address they were trying to address identity fraud over these anonymous widespread computer networks and they thought how can we do this set up a service provider ok well the service provider needs to it's not just a simple as that because you want you know you've created another exposure point for the identification information so they require only insufficient information at the service wider than the claims or sent to the service provider but sufficient enough to locate the with this system if somebody finds your credit card they don't know what conditions you've imposed on it they have to go out and sort of guess you use it try to attempt to use it at different locations and if they're not lucky enough to guess the so that's found in appendix fourteen and basically it was determining whether a given use of an identity is permitted based on information that is in itself insufficient doesn't sound right to you in my view it absolutely is because really we're talking about is just simply the idea of information that is insufficient to commit use of the identity and being able to use provide really for example claim one of the twenty seven patent which is an explorer so the five that effectively just has three steps receiving determining and sending so the service provider receives insufficient is we're talking about the ability to basically temporarily change the condition so for example i can say in a credit card scenario say i want to allow it for a while and then  merging to the figure or something along those lines and i think here what we haven't ever seen is any actual inventive concept any tangible technical improvement i think the inventor had testified during in the district court level in front of the judge that the the inventions were used on conventional hardware i think that we've heard that admission here as well so really the only difference in a conventional system was the interjection of this service provider which as we heard was effectively a rd party intermediary and that's exactly the the construct in the alice case there was a rd party intermediary for for a settlement situation that was covers just this abstract idea of putting a service provider into this chain and what we heard to was from the other side was that this service provider was in a pathway but there's nothing in the claims the talks about any specificity about this particular pathway that's the generic computer and or software that everyone agrees here was was just generic so there's no improvement to that with letters of credit now that may be i think we found numerous at the district court levels there was a plethora of different examples being discussed at the hearing one of them was a check example where banks had a book of checks and you would you would confirm the check and it had the same same signature is the one in the book that's another example i think your example of the basically delegating certain responsibilities to an assistant or  and and for example just telling the security guard at the bank or some of the bank i have told my secretary she has these these rights and maybe maybe the bank keeps a book of the assistants and what the assistants are allowed to do with respect to  piece of paper a pencil maybe not even that you could probably just do in her head as long as or someone else you're you're dealing with and you talk to and they can memorize remember things that's about it there's nothing remotely technical about these these cla to we talked about was this insufficient information as one thing in the brief talked about as a potential event of concept but the patent specification mentions that the insufficient information can be things like your name your address the last four digits of  your credit card number and these are all things that in our everyday lives we've called one thousand eight hundred number and they ask for the last four digits of our credit card number that's that's the same concept is insufficient information to use the credit card but it is sufficient for someone on the other end of the line to identify who you are and that's exactly the same concept as insufficient information is not an event of concept well of these claims are abstract as you say it these are good ideas opens one protect well i think the way i think as we heard there could be definitely very specific implications for example how is it that this service provider makes the determination the claims all the requires that determined something but if you had a claim that was specifically on here the here's the software steps you actually  here or sufficient to make an abstract idea patent what i'm talking about adding some more bells and whistles that is intermediary per musician i think that's probably more of a step too if they found a of the number of potential stop orders you know to read errors why does that matter i think i was referring to your are to clarify would be some real specifics about the actual more abstraction that's right more abstraction it's not going to help you actually have to have something concrete and i think this is a claim where is reflected in the spec of the defendant claims it's not limited to even the particular field for example you know if this had been limited to credit cards i think we would still be in a abstract scenario but this applies to credit card transactions building key access so in other words actual physical security as an example they have this could be encompassed by the claims you know  steps that were intended to be performed on a computer although there is no computer hardware were cited in the claims and this court found that this unconventional steps in a certain  it was to software licensing where key information that could have been in any memory was located in the bios memory of a computer and the bio it was the lower court found that to be  passive it's a reactive system that looks for suspicious activity and then alerts somebody after the suspicious activity has occurred so very much like the the reactive system that we we talk that we that that the inventor specifics it specifically says they want to design an improvement over so we don't find fair warning what were our claims are intended to improve upon a fair warning type system but back to an kora the moving the key information or locating this key information in bios memory versus other memory was found by this court to be something significant why because a h has a harder time to access the bio bios memory of a computer than other parts similarly we've moved key information of these conditions known only that the service provider and the identity on or off site from the haters in the systems and i think that's a start that's a start but it's what but look there's also the insufficient information in there and i think it was a very novel concept that really no one saw until about two thousand and thirteen here so the concept of insufficient information even was was novel at the time just alone tokenization is the we explain this in our in our grey brief is something that is information and i should well it's i think you're insufficient identification information right well there's there are certainly examples of insufficient information everywhere but the use of it here was was new in computer transaction processing by virtue of that at least by virtue of the fact that you've got a service provider that wasn't in the structure beforehand and sending insufficient information to time has expired thank you so the case