transaction that's recited in the preamble as well as the various steps of the claim the electronic transaction at issue is this broader concept of engaging in activities involving the internet and so when this dependent claim talks about the electronic transaction during when this authentication is occurring it's identifying transactions involving e commerce and the dependent claim then go transaction or for ice i understand your honor's question now the answer is yes it can be construed and understood to be an activity that is not involving an exchange of money and that would be a reasonable construction which brings us back to its relationship with the independent claim so here under the broader reasonable interpretation standard which is what we use at t until they decide otherwise the independent claim talks about a transaction but doesn't specifically say its financial or non financial in nature in other words it to really come purchase of goods and services can relate to purchasing goods and services without really having to pay for those goods and services right that's correct your honor that's correct that the other end of the transaction in which the goods are received and i think that's one question and your honor i will say this we're talking about the electronic transaction the focus of the century it's not your honor i'm not under this court's prior case law including versa that the concept of engaging in e commerce an exchange of goods and services is not enough to make it a covered business method  the claim as construed relates to e commerce activities that can involve goods and services but if a claim may involve trying to get financial transactions that is not enough to bring it is and the answer is it's not in the statute because the claim is focused on the secure authentication mesh the how the context in which it occur not the focus of the claims and we have to look at the claims as properly construed here so just because it involves activities on the internet involving e commerce in certain situations it may involve services in other situations it may that involve goods there's nothing about the claims that talks about payments there's nothing about the claims that talk about exchanging money or engaging in bartering or things like that the context of the discussion within the speci ication is focused on e commerce activity in gauging activities involving goods and services but let's be clear those that actually bodies can incur using your e mail engaging in activities involving i file sharing program right so these are not activities that are financial in nature and the point i'm trying to make your honor is when the claim is focused on activities that are not financial in nature and the claims as construed demonstrate that they can so let me it sounds like your honor is making a claim limitation around purchasing and i just want to make it clear that that is not the claim limitation here and it's not a limitation of the claims as  then that is focused on a situation where the authentication occurs while there is a transaction involving picking up goods that it's unclear to me from your hypothetical whether there's which in that if that is an element of the claim then it's closer to the case law where there is a financial element and in that particular situation i would agree it falls with is not the case here these claims are focused on authentication involving the user an external entity and a central entity there's no payment which within the claims or the specification summation your honor we didn't argue it to the piece have because there is not an opportunity during the proceeding where the regulation applies to argue that the regulation is wrong that's not part of the procedure at the p t o so as courts have  situations where you're arguing the agency got the regulation wrong that is an issue that can be addressed on appeal even if it wasn't addressed in the proceeding below so that's the point that we're making here you  agency has implemented a regulation it's actually stronger than a policy it's the rules for acting and engaging is there is nothing that the p t can add to the record here getting gauged in rule making and comment it decided to implement this this regulation based upon a comment of a senator and so there's nothing that it can add from the record to help this court review this because it's a pure legal issue it's a question of whether the regulation is contrary to statute and under chevron step two even if we decide that the statute is ambiguous it's not one of the permissible understanding's of the statute as it should be implemented in a regulation so again there's there's no difference there there you go thank you your honesty  statutory definition because claim one cup claims a method for performing operations used in the practice of a financial service and in particular it has a financial activity element through the key tabs construction of the term external entity financial there it's talking about nonpayment and so it's true that claim one might cover situations in which not every transaction is going to involve payment but regardless of that they're sold this additional requirement that the ex  claim one it includes you know this claim five within its scope and so it does relate to both financial and non financial transactions but the path news is that that word financial to refer payments and that's a but it's still that's still an operation that's been used in the practice of a financial service because there has been a transaction and it's just facilitating and allowing someone to complete that transaction  one does have a financial activity element this is not like the case cases in the hypotheticals of have been offered in the sports other opinions about it had to ditch digging or whitehall where the only kind of incidentally touches on financial the right standard there is a financial activity element and its germination on that part of the c p m analysis firm turning to the technological exception for invention exception here it's just important to remember that the issue is very narrow we have a i know there's some language and some of the sports cases that that have expressed some doubt on it but ultimately the question we're asking is is this a reasonable interpretation of the statute and the director get chevron deference on that point and it is reasonable for two reasons it tracks the statutory text so the text talks about a technological invention and invention just the plain meaning of the word is something that somebody comes up with first you know when we say thomas edison invented the light all it's because he technological modifies invention so it's got to the the director has reasonably said that it's got to be the technological feature in the claim that is than the new and non obvious thing and so given that the directors  regulation is a reasonable interpretation of plain meaning of the statute we think that part of the regulation is permissible it also does track the legislative history when senator schumer was discussing the technological exception he uses that same  phrase he says to the exception only excludes those patents whose novelty turns on a technological invention over the prior art and so there again he the legislative history refers to the novelty of the technological feature patent doesn't meet it because the board made a specific finding that all of the alleged technologies here we know that these were just generic computer components and really the boards findings here are very similar to the hightstown case where the court  d the finding that that was a c v and had other similar facts it didn't expressly talk about the validity of this regulation but certainly the board's factual findings were the same in both this case and in sight sound and to the point it was being court or lower tribunals where they might be bound by some higher authority but you still make the arguments to preserve it and in the lower tribunals even if the lower tribunals might say well we're bound then you've you've  and that's why i started out with the merits because frankly i think if if we get to the merits of this regulation it is a reasonable read of the statute since that the actual merits of the case were addressed i don't have anything further to say on them unless there invalidated there's nothing for the the court to deal with in the c v i'm proceeding with respect to this issue about the permissible interpretations i just want to make a few points a permissible circular in nature it calls it a technological invention by talking about a technological invention what the a request of the p t to do is issue guidelines for understanding whether something meets or doesn't meet the technological invention exception and let's keep the framework of the a i a appellate process in mind here what has happened is they have an i p r they have a post grant review program and  exception it's a special program that sunsets in two thousand and twenty it's focused on a particular type of patent that has a particular type of claims and what this course case law tells us is if a claim is read in a manner that it can involve both financial and nonfinancial activities in this case we're focusing i think on the transaction concept within the claim that does not bring it within the purview of the c m jurisdictional statute and then we go to that step two that we've been talking about as well is it a technological invention such that it is not a business method that it that it falls within the safe harbor  a computer implemented technology that's focused on a specific problem arising from the way people engage in activities on the internet it provides a specific your honor in the past there were manual activities not involving the internet but they did not involve this real time dynamic time dependent code that is the dynamic code at issue in this case and even if we look in the context of computer technology and the the prior technology it often involved hardware it involved digital certificates and in fact the p t o today when you're engaging in practice before the p t o you use this digital certificate that you have to request ahead of time it takes weeks to get you have to upload it sometimes it doesn't work right so the it doesn't expire unless and until you tell the office that you need a new one so this is a specific