the jurisdiction it's not to do parting for me under the under the rules the first part is that not one and obviously the second part is that a technological solution to a technological problem claps you the second part then with the initiation standard i think the second part is overlaps the second part the technological inventions standard of the jurisdictional question overlaps with part of  is one of one eligible and that means it should have been initiated in the first place and therefore there is no us topple factor the final decision i mean that really can't have been what congress intended for the i think that's fair question your honor that the rule the rule regulations as with the regulation says and and  b it's a technological invention of the claims subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is not one non obvious part one and soft a technical problem using a technical solution or t determination on the record that existed at that time but that later on there's been private eye received and the final decision may be different from the initial decision but that doesn't mean that the initial decision was wrong or that the proceeding was improper for admission i think as a general matter you could say that what the board did here in the initial stage it didn't it didn't apply the as a whole requirement of the of thirty seven c f r forty two  situation where or you're conflating the initiation decision with a final decision which you've agreed would be impractical i think it is impractical to say that the initiation decision language of the regulation applying the claimed subject matter as a whole and looking at whether or not it's solving a technical problem a technical solution or a technical problem i don't think the board did that even came close to doing  that so i do this case does present a unique set of facts and it is a what the claims cover here is a technical a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem in the insurance industry it's the interaction the integration between a doctor's office submission claims submissions system and an insurance company back and pay or verification system and i think that's the crux obvious and on the same record it was understood that there were other ways of doing this that there were other ways of of implementing the idea that and so preemption is not a concern here attempting to characterize the abstract idea that can't overgeneralize you can't over abstract and you can't dictate structure to these individual components and look at the conventionality of each individual component i think the has said you can always boil down any idea into some level of abstraction and that's the struggle with all of these cases with how is this that different from from the actual the actual program that was a analysis so this is the what's going on here is it's it was it was new it was not well it was something that hadn't been done before and it's like a step up and it's a step back and explain what was going on in the industry at a high level create computerization and then and then post computerization the before the computer age it was expensive for the insurance companies review all the clinics and so there was no computers so they essentially this is such computers i'm able them to review the claims more efficient so once things became computerized the the insurance companies implemented rules and this is what created the problem the computer is that the insurance companies implement the rules by which they would reject claims there was no integration between the doctor's office the medical practice medicine servers and the insurance company so what happened was all these instruments claims were coming in and they were getting rejected and they weren't getting pay and there was no integration between the systems and that's at the heart of the invention of the earlier was practical that was done these claims computer even pre computer and they ensurance companies notified the providers or their service companies that we won't accept a claim unless it provides this information that's our rule says so there were different ways of understanding what the insurance companies would do and that's actually one of the inventive aspects of the claim through the experience  medical practice management or through the experience the doctor's office people understood what was going to get rejected and what wouldn't get rejected but what wasn't done was taking the real time updated rules from the insurance company and integrating it with  doctor's office so that you would so that you would know before the claim was submitted at the doctor's office using innovative for the doctor's office before computers knew that the form had to be completed and they were checking to see that the form was complete the the doctor's office is doing eligibility checks and that's describing the pattern the doctor's office where the doctor's office wasn't doing was checking to see if the insurance company's rules were up to snuff were witness they were checking for completely there was there was some i don't think there's anything in the record saying that either rules were being applied from the insurance company or or that rules were being applied in an updated fashion or the that it was being integrated in real time where the patent describe the rules database and the rules and how they're implemented concepts but it doesn't define what those rules are right in in column six it does describe familiar with the decision that we issued yesterday intellectual ventures for scepter one yes for we set an unspecified set of rules isn't enough for purposes of step two of alice and i think  abstract idea of indexing searching on a database and then trying to narrow the application of that to the field of use using x m l files my understanding is x m l tags were synonymous x m l and tagging were synonymous so it was it was  sentially a limitation on the field of use which doesn't allow you to past up to what we have here is is very different than what we have here is much more ten to the case in  of the abstract idea internet filtering that it was conventional elements conventional network elements conventional computer arms that were arranged in a way that hadn't been done before what we have here yes there are conventional computer just there are rules we don't disagree that in general a rule to be conventional or a database could be conventional but what you have here and i think that the key here is that the implementation of the rules in the database and the interactive interface which was novel by the way hadn't been put together in a way that had been done here integrated the two systems in a way that hadn't been done before nobody before this invention at the doctor's office was able to see the rules in fraud questions of what it was not to let the at at the doctor's office have kept the set of insurance company rules and when they are submitting a form they would have to make sure that they satisfy those rules right and this is just doing that faster i don't think there is any evidence admit that's a rule and they were checking to see that they completed the form right then that's that your honor that's that's different than the knowing in advance are you going to pass all of the rules and classes are you ready filling out the form are you are you going to meet all the requirements for each each particular plan are you getting the most up to date will know that hadn't been done before is it your point that the rules could change on a daily basis system that allows you to have those updates rather than yes i mean that i was mentioning rules that was one of the key aspects that distinguish this over the prior art was the ability to update the rules in real time directly from the pay or server that was one of the key limitations here from the pay or server that hadn't been done before the pizza here below said that that wasn't that hadn't been done before and i hadn't been integrated and if i didn't for a moment i claims before submission and that the claims are a sight meter conventional and routine computer components to carry out that idea the p taps finding is entirely consistent your odds with what the inventors tell us in the past few decade one that is that it's somewhat different from just putting something on a computer in the ability to have updated rules from the pay or that that you can automatically get rather than go back to some book that you claims don't recite any integration whatsoever in fact we don't even know based on the claim language where the its components are even in communication is wrong method claims we speak about servers we speak about databases we speak about client station is no communication means or mechanism or structure of which these components talk and they reference the specification they're trying to backfill the claim by getting limitations about these so called updates are taking place in real time the only thing the claim speak to is that they're received from a peer server but there's no explanation as to how that happens and we know from your honor's ruling in accenture that you can are the claim invention is what needs to obvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea which is exactly what we have here is nonetheless packman elegant and it makes sense your honor because first of all you to vist rate the whole one a one requirement altogether if you simply said it based on whether it's b and the p to have it would seem to make the one hundred one determination a temporary one or an ad hoc one in the sense that so it's patent eligible because it's not obvious over these references but what happens if later on some additional better references let's say turn up does it all of a sudden turn the abstract idea into being the know what the subject matter it doesn't make much sense are two separate determinations the one of one terminations the front door of the patent office if you can't get past that separate and apart from one of two three then the fact that on the record evidence of a certain combination of references the subject matter may be not obvious has no bearing whatsoever on the one on one determination and then secondly the situation where if there's a typo i think it's rather common sense to correct that typo before he submit the payment especially if you know and this is right on both sides of the parties here the expert testimony is that the prior art and the evidence of record both from the teachings of the pattern itself from the expert testimony of record in fact your honour's i think there was a comment made that there is no evidence in the record that in the way this was done before it was done with medical practitioners that that's entirely correct their own expert mr goulden specifically testified and actually recall a binder of rules that used to be used to crosses these claims before submission and they used to detect and correct their errors and so the reality is and i think there was some reference made to clear jurisprudence on this issue that the mere enhancing or speeding up or making it more mentioned intellectual ventures or was the decision from a few years ago where that was exactly the point the chronicle the list of cases that made that point very clear and that's exactly what's going on here you're essentially if you look at the distinct components in these claims you have a medical practice management server if you have a client station you have a database you have a payer server the p type correctly determined that these are all standard generic routine conventional components and that's straight out of the specifications i think the servers as defined as being any computer you can't get one general what is your response to the issue of the interplay between technological invention and the one to one in isolated technical aspects of the claims and so the routine conventional well know the first thought also made it clear that it's premature to assess the patentability of the method steps and that's common sense at the end of the day  think so although i suspect that the scope of the record would evolve throughout the proceeding in there may be some more light shed on the issue but at the end of the day and it is also the different standard i mean it's a question of it doesn't have to be preponder technical aspects and determined that there was no technical solution being offered here these are routine conventional components we don't if we agree with you on the one to one large measure predicated on your failures of proof right well i i think the proof was there i think it was misunderstood or misapprehended in some cases all right north frankly i think our brief sets out the reasons why that's the case but just two instances that i would like to point your attention to is that people have been the final really decision specified that there's two points they made that the that petitioner did not assert with updated collation we there's two specific points in arbitration your original petition will make that exact same point so he calls in the question the extent to which the peats have reviewed all of the evidence and our position is under  have those bases in the two examples that i just mentioned here are bases that we provided in the petition and furthermore there was also some i think it was five months fortunate but the p t have seemed to disregard dr bergeron supplemental declaration and i would add only that that was our first opportunity to respond to appellants response and preliminary response to the original petition and one of the issues that came up is that they define the term rules to be coded logic that evaluates an information performs an action or something along those lines and so we felt the need to submit a supplemental declaration with dr berger on applies that understanding as well and at the end of the day concludes that are still the claims are still invalid over the proposed combination and so our position is that one of three determination although mooted entirely if the one on one goes our way it still we believe that it was not properly decided or should should take a look at it speeding up of correlating records on the network there those were things that yes they sped things up and they did they enhance things but they also did things differently they they did it was a different arrangement of conventional components and both of those cases we have an arrangement of components that integrates the insurance the health insurance for pay or rules updated with with the doctor's office in a way that had not been done before in real time with for non obviousness that it's a it was an innovative interface that hadn't been used before in the context of the insurance industry that allowed the folks at the doctor's office to see in the same scream both