good morning your honour's make this a court last least when reading over the supreme court's opinion in mayo two words jumped out at me those two words for in context the supreme court used these words in discussing the previous decision in time vs the year specifically the supreme court said and this is on page twelve of the slip opinion and mail reason these words jumped out at me is because all of a sudden step to a palace in the make more sense to me step two ballasts now i know one has to understood the question was not are the steps set forth in the claim in the abstract or i'm sorry an idea in the abstract or an implementation of the claim and it seems to me step two is sort of a double check to make sure that it's that the claim is directed to an implementation and not just the idea in this in context part and help me understand it because the question would be if you find that there's an idea in step one that the claims are directed to under step two is that on the steps of the claim conventional in the context of implementing that idea in our or in our case it is specifically implementing that idea on a computer and this goes back to the concerns raised about claim an idea on a computer that you're not just saying take this idea and implement it on computer is just saying like claiming this idea so the question is when implementing that idea on the computer in that context are the steps set forth  the claim merely conventional  computer programming somewhere but the court did not look at the question are these the steps that would be conventional in in the context of implementing taking this idea and implementing it on the computer the pieces of hardware that are used in the claims i mean it's also involved in networking communications received on the computer it's implementing the method but it's not the claim is not on making the computer run any faster and quicker or anything like that it's  the whether it's an improvement but the way that it does that is unconventional and it uses the steps implemented by the computer are implemented in an unconventional way it's not the way that one of skill in the art would implement the idea of enabling communications between persons through an intermediary intermediary without revealing the home address which is the idea that the court found under step one that the claims were and i think in fact that that going back to this issue of whether a claim has to improve the operation of the hardware in a computer related in anything that uses a computer the only kind of computer related software patents that are valid are those that change the operation of the hardware themselves and that was never the case it's similar that the process plans in other cases don't improve the operation of the machine that is doing the processing i think in the cases we've talked about before here and on the the from what i understood the mess in cases where the pharmaceutics is there's no improvement in any machinery there either of these these cases existing machinery in a new way to produce a new result and that's in our context we're using computers in a new way to produce a benefit and that benefit in our case was we've had  post alice and every one of them has been found and i would have all me me one information flow case which is what this is that has been found eligible using a computer to pass information or parse data somewhere else that is in essence transferring data to make it look like something but it made it look like you were still in the i think it was the merchant's website when in fact you were not and therefore it gave the impression when you wanted to come back to that  help promote visitors there because you kept being sent back to a place that you thought was one thing but it was something else that was just so it was just transferring data from one pet web page to another and had nothing to do with the operation of the internal operation of the computer it didn't improve memory in any way it was sure information flow in that case information from one website to another from memory to another web page which was then broadcast out by the computer and you're on you're actually right i was looking for that as well and the other thing i was looking at is how is that i didn't find a similar path benefit you said that the benefit of this method is to attract to retain website visitors o that this is retaining website visitors it just talks about putting out a website which has a lookup field another website but it and there didn't even say it in spec and gave your claims of directed to building to creating a new type the server's name in it if that's that's what it's doing it's creating that new kind of email message that didn't exist before that's not the message that comes in it's changing that just like in the in our holdings there is a web page and then when it's sent onto the screen of the or visitors are visitors to that website in fact in the appendix at page one hundred forty two during the hearing down below in front of the district court the district court specifically asked whether or not it was in the appendix one forty two which is page seven in the transcript starting at line sixteen ok can i ask then where in the claims describing the four six one patent does it state that the purpose of the claim is to do what you just described the repeat visitors what i'm reading it it struck me the purpose was to allow this communication between doctor and whoever you are saying that the real purpose is just so that everybody sees every emptied out over and over and over again and that would  from an advertising perspective caused someone to want to go to that website continue and appendix one forty three mr wire answers exactly now in terms of saying in the claim it doesn't say it in the claim and so we have a case very analogous to the bernheimer decision where they suppose a benefit of the claim is nowhere in the claim itself and that was what was used in order to invalidate the independent claim the only reason that a question was raised with respect to the deep end it claims was that the inventive feature of lack of redundancy was specifically reciting an independent claim for which does not exist here at all in terms of d d r i think also d d r doesn't apply here d d r was solving a problem unique to the internet going from one web site by a visitor to a separate website analogous to someone walking into a home depot and if you touch the black and decker saw you be transported to a black and decker store which doesn't happen in real the court in d d r said because it was an internet specific problem with a specific solution which the claims themselves called out they talked about the visitor they talked about maintaining the look and feel so that the visitor felt like they're on the same site nothing like that exists here it's not like d d r in fact if anything it's just like the secured mail case where mail was brought into a mail server the mail was read rules were applied to the mail to see whether or not the address needed to be changed if the rule was met and address was changed to a distribution list you had a new address and you facilitated the communications that way and finally using the  case very recently from your honour's in step two we have to take out the idea of the abstraction of either intermediate communication or even as mr wire suggests that it would be somehow this branding you have to take that out and look to whether or not there's anything else in the claim that makes it inventive but here email and generic computers are all that are left with your friend was making an argument that that's not the standard and as you know again  appendix at thirty eight column one lines forty three forty five and that we're applying simply a generic computer which is in the appendix at thirty nine palms three lines fifty three sixty two forty three  lines thirty three thirty six and appendix forty four problem fourteen lines twelve through fifteen i think what he was trying to say is that you have to now insist on some other context about advertising or branding simply because of one line in the specification but that doesn't exist in the claim and so isn't a context into which you draw this the generic computer is still all that's being used there's nothing inventive carrier unless you have any further question  just quickly i think i want to be and respond to actually another issue that came up and that was the differences between the claims and that the claims have different prep and the court below only look to claim one and said all the other claims are the same in essence and specifically now and i in context