nutshell that's specific improvement is the cash and a high bandwidth training program on a local computer and only transmitting low bandwidth just information back to a central administrative server via low bandwidth connection in substantially is that changing the computer the the paper embodiment that's described is actually not claimed in the claims your honor that would be one of the ways that one could not the concept is simple but it's still not abstract v if i can if you give me get a minute to go into the background of where we were technologically when this invention was created to clear up why this is a technological solution to a technological problem so at the time of the invention very few retailers use for retail training primarily you know like a coach or a different user any store or any company that has lots of local you know program for training employees and you know what not to do with a shoplifter or what to do you know for workplace harassment was deployed on an in store machine where a stand alone element server was in employee would log in locally on the server which can then contain the both training content and the test results and then for corporate to see those results typically the store manager would have to create a floppy disk and mail it to the corporate office by the time the management had data to look at it was old data and it wasn't giving you a good sense of what how the training is working the other alternative at the time back in two thousand and four was to have a central server and host the elements at corporate h q since the bandwidth was very limited as we said and that van with had to include all of the available bandwidth used for credit card transactions and other mission critical transactions the available band with didn't allow for video or audio you had just low bandwidth content being streamed which is t images very limited images it was not engaging content at all employees just weren't getting it so multimedia is novel approach and we argue non abstract approach was a hybrid of those two systems best of both worlds maintained a central server with a live with live test data that's the low bandwidth information but separated the high bandwidth content so it resided locally at the store so multimedia can deliver both an engaging in media rich user what you're doing it feels like the mere automation of that very process well it's not just the automation of that process it's the providing in the s a t are scan n hypothetical there's no connection between that student and the central database it's basically there's an air gap you have to put your test dancers on the scantron and they get mail that i mean we all took the the else that's weird find out for months until we got our results and apparently we all passed but the there was the result is that there's there's no low bandwidth connection and that's the end specific claim structure then important aspect of the claimed invention is that while the high bandwidth program resides on the local computer only the employee's low bandwidth test information is transmitted back to the central server and it's not just whenever it's bandwidth material without burdening the retail locations data line and possibly compromising its electronic commerce it also enables employed to interact with a high bandwidth program now in two thousand and seventeen on a smartphone or a tablet on his or her own time even in the fifth year she's in a bad signal area like a subway stop or an airplane and the invention additionally enables a manager to review the employee data as it comes in or reasonably practical there which was all after the patent it with games of the same conclusion that multimedia did back in two thousand and four which is that performance is greatly improved when high bandwidth content is cached on a local device and only low bandwidth information is transmitted claims recite actual structural components and how they interact with each other in much greater specificity than just do it on a computer and both sets of claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea of administering tests  y so when we get to go to the two steps of the alice test you know the first step is are the claims directed to an abstract idea no they're directed to a specific improvement in l m s is a specific technological area and when we examine the claims as a whole instead of the abyss aerated claim that this record examines then we see that there's physical structural limitations that are more specific than just a computer and we go to the when we go to step two we see that the claims received meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and because of the specific distribution of functionality within the claimed l m s all of the advantages and then sure before the invention are possible and none of those were possible with prior masses you know this court has repeatedly held that moving on around the functionality within a network of devices so that the network performs better is eligible subject matter  for example an electric power the court held that inventive distribution of functionality within a network is bad and eligible if then went on to say electric power that that's not happening in this case it's happening if the claims been moved around the functionality to make it perform better then the claims might have been subject matter eligible but in electric power all it was doing was just looking at lots of data really quickly very similarly in this case the  to five that moves a high bandwidth training program to the local device a low bandwidth connection connection a local device to a central server and performances improve greatly when the high bandwidth content is cache from the local device and only sits at the front of the class watches the students take the test students put their name on the test fill in the answers in turn of the test see to the teacher they transmitted to the teacher the teacher can then grade the test manually or with the scantron can submit it into a computer that spits out results the teacher then sorts the results grades the students that's the process of administering a test all this invention does is take  that real world analog that has been around since i've been alive and put it on the internet to make it faster your honor asked whether a student could write down their answers and put it into the local computer that's covered by the claims if you look at claim one it just says the student answers their answers on a local computer they didn't say it has to typing but it could write them down submit them in to a scanner hit the send button email and as an attachment send it to the to disparate locations and the problem with that approach was is that and it talked about segregating the answers in the tacit contemporaneous quiz and the employer would have to take the quiz in send it either by mail or however it got there to a central server and then all of the test data would have to be entered manually that was a problem this purports to solve that problem by having it entered on the local computer and transmitted over the internet that's not sufficiently inventive but if you look at the summary of the invention section it talks about administering a task using computers well let's look at the computers that it describes it is a conventional client server architecture with a communications link that is prefer a cli a conventional internet connection that is the technology we're talking about here that predated and everyone i think it knows that predated two thousand and four the conventional client server architecture quote an overview schematic of the inventive training system ten is shown in figure when one of the main components of that system are local computers and a central server let's talk about the conventional interval internet link between them each local computer can communicate with the central server via communication link twenty three and that can be any type of communications link but prefer to leave one that's kind of a conventional internet connection now this notion that it's you don't touch an argument the notion that because there's a description of a system a hosted learning management system that all of a sudden makes it  mention that but in the briefing he doesn't i want to make clear that alice specifically rejects that you just can't give a name to the clause in the preamble and all of a sudden it's patentable and it dictates quite the opposite but that the argument that he focused on is that this is an prior ways of doing it talks about segregating the test and the test questions and we know that's been there throughout history are not history but school formal education as long as i've lived  alleged improvement of enabling a student to enter answers on the local computer that's not invention that's merely typing in a computer scanning something so for example if i have  login with no action between the future of the server which is new and different than what happened for requiring a high bandwidth connection because of all the information that was getting sent from the test it goes back to the changed the architecture what they have did did is transmit the way they've transmitted the test program is via cd rom it's not through the connection it's on the local device and test answers are still transmitted but the background section that's only one scenario that it talks about it also talks about the other scenario of transmitting the task with the quiz to all of the employee sites through a cd rom and and just typing in the answers using the conventional interconnect connection they didn't change the internet connection they didn't change the computer arch texture what they said is we're just transmit only the answers from a local computer to a server and we're not going to stream the video program that's not inventive and the interesting thing is as i was listening to oral arguments of previous cases and one of them is williams that was recently argued and they made the opposite argument they said the old way and that was a computer learning management type of claims a virtual classroom where they took a virtual classroom and put it up in a distributed internet and they made the argument well the prior art the prior way of doing it was mailing the cd in software to every local computer and that was very problematic in arm and prove it was doing it in a streaming fashion the court rejected that you can't and also you can't prove one abstract idea with another abstract idea and in this court  the amazon since streaming media is not is an abstract idea is not invent the fact that you are not street taking you're not doing what abstract ideas are doing another doesn't change the result here and again their alleged solution is entering the test answers on the local computer and transmitting them to a central server using generic computer architecture that is not inventive and it's merely taking a real world analog is how we take tests you take it on your desk which is the analog to the computer you write down your answers and you transmit them to the teacher  simpler real world analog which you can call that as an improvement over is where a teacher stands in the front of the classroom and streams its questions and tests and people raise their hands and they have to respond oh well that's a high bandwidth problem for the teacher if it doesn't want to talk a lot it just puts it in a book and and puts it on the desk but again here i think there's there can be real no dispute that this there's an abstract concept here it's the idea of it administering a test as the district court found and all they did was is put it on a computer architecture that was well known that's how the internet worked to remember a o l you got to  see in the late ninety's or early ninety's you got a cd in the mail you put it on your local computer and you signed on and you transmitted your unique identifier name and other additional information answering questions of how you want your connection set up but every time you communicate with the server it didn't transmit that a o l program that sat on your local computer to the central server the other alleged improvement that they talk about is enabling the manager to review in real time that that's not a technological improvement that's the way the internet works right you have a local computer you send information to a central server another local computer can access it real time that's the cloud and it's the way the internet has worked at all times and this court the supreme court of repeatedly said you can't take an abstract idea and implement on a computer and say i have an invention and the notion of they said there was no claim construction that there's these elements that definitions if you look at the definitions of a few provided they don't explain how that would change the response will result the definitions actually  purely functional and there they don't explain how those definitions which change the result which is required under this court's precedent for example and cyber phone with that i don't really have anything else i'm happy to answer any questions several initially regarding step one the district court ignored the actual claim language and focus on the supposed purpose of the claims and the claims were gutted of all of their actual structural limitations and this rated version of claim twelve w appendix that's with this record and bascomb did and this court reversed that is that's the opposite of what one is supposed to do when reviewing claims for subject matter eligibility purposes instead one is supposed to review the claims as a whole really wanted to get content you still had to stream it and if we all remember back in the ninety's it took a long time for it to be waiting for downloading to happen because that was streaming the content the of the of the district court also did not apply the inventive step concept direct the inventive concept step directly because it failed to consider how the elements are arranged and how they interact after that the district court stripped the claims of all structural limitations this record went back to the structural limitations and indicated that each such reversed as it should here procedurally the district court failed to resolve all factual disputes in favor of the nonmoving party multimedia which is required in a motion of the pleadings that it's not required in every case to do a claim construction but here it is in the keep the cases that were cited by the district court both of those in those cases they said no claim construction dispute is relevant to the eligibility issue in ip learn focus for example not only was there the basic character of the claim