the which takes in the data electronically transforms and then uses those the the algorithm whether it's a third party's algorithm or a first parties or they're the own party's algorithm and it tests the data against that algorithm so that we can tell whether the data certified against that algorithm so the that the fact that the other of them is a third party financial so that's where you want to get to that's what i pick up the algorithm there is no profile anymore there will be but the whole question is whether the therefore you're left with nothing that's abstract isn't well i would say that it's like dear without when you take the mathematical formulae all you are left with is a generic method for tearing rubber i would say it's similar to bascom in that but it was physically transformative wasn't that different than what you have here in here is we have some physical transformation in that the data is it's not physically transformative in that we do get a tangible report and yet they don't inundate together with the report showing certification against the standard and so i think it's more like dear it's it's similar to well it has a lot of similarities to amdocs the case where where we're taking data from multiple  multiple sources putting them together and creating a a billing report well could we are you familiar with electric power yes so in that opinion the court tried to draw from multiple cases from the court and come up with some principles and explained collecting information just struck that's an abstract ideas then it went further in taking that collected information and then analyzing it by a process that people go through in their minds and doing that on a computer is also just an abstract idea claims i feel like ok we're collecting financial information about an individual we're applying some unstated rules to review that information to come and  display results this is all computer implemented indicating whether there whether there is a risk trouble with this financial information that to me you know if you can explain to me why that to me follows the profile of what we explained in electric power forthwith in an abstract idea what it looks like is we're doing an abstract process on a computer as opposed to say doing some kind of specific improvement to a computer that improves the computers the tool now having said all that set up please explain to me where i'm off so i think a couple of things here so with electronic elect as like a power grid the whole idea of this was was just collecting and analyzing information here we are not doing that what we're doing here is we're taking taking information that that comes into the system we're using that algorithm whatever it may be that had that emphasizes a pattern of or ask specifically we're not looking at anything other than a pattern  and we're marking certain exceptions we're not saying whether those exceptions are per se more risky or less risky and then we're having that same algorithm look at that that  data and then present that problematic attempt you know a report to a lender so that a lender knows does this data conform to the standards that i have and i think the letter power growth grid was a different case in that it was simply gathering information analyzing it and presenting it to power power in the power context ok i'm sorry i didn't quite understand the distinction there because if i could just summarize your description of your claim to invention it's collecting information analyzing that information to see if there's any trouble spots and then presenting the trouble spots first it's collecting additional information from other sources and putting that together with the with the exceptions as we call them and then saying whether they're valid exceptions saying are these exceptions that we should be concerned and then presenting that in a way that another third party can act on this certified report so i think it's a little different than simply just gathering information collecting on and and and analyzing it and then displaying it that your or your invention is different from that i think of a couple of things there is this can't really be done on it for humans and humans can't necessarily do this this process for one we've gotten too big advantage as that it is out of this point it's it's faster in that we can we can collect information from multiple sources and put them together in this report to say whether they the data confer conforms with the standards and second we've taken out the human error part in that one of the biggest problems with the technology prior to this was humans introducing fraud into the system are you pretty familiar with the invention and the score in supreme court decision the supreme court are rejected the idea that just being able to do and putting that all together faster and faster is just one advantage of the system it's not the advantage it's the fact that you can actually do all of us and like trying to glee and minimizing the introduction of the minimizing human interaction it human error into the system not because computers work so perhaps with it it's also part of the reason is that putting this out a rhythm on the system and then having the abstraction is seeing it in that we're doing these concrete steps of putting the software putting the algorithm into the software having the software confirm exceptions and then generating attack a report specifically telling us whether we can we we we we conform or we don't conform with the with the with the  we had misconstrued their their brief and referred to our unsuccessful motion to strike their evidence as the court is probably aware there wasn't an unsuccessful motion to strike the evidence because we made no motion to strike the relevant authority and i'm i'm loath to characterize to this court its own decisions but for example this this court's decision in electoral ventures rejected claims that analyze multiple sources of data just analyzing as judge chan brought up analyzing data and then going getting more data and going and getting more data that doesn't take it out of the realm of an abstract idea nor is it i would suggest particularly inventive as to whether a human can practice the claims let's say i am a lender who says i don't want to lend to someone who has had three insufficient fund instances in the last six months i pick up their bank statement i look at it the algorithm engine in my head says there is two i pick up the next months and i see one the algorithm engine in my head says that's three done it reports to me don't lend to that person that's three insufficient fund instances that's the height of the abstraction going beyond that your honour's i would suggest these claims are not only preemptive they're cooperative humans would have to be in three of those do preemptive your honor meaning that if someone comes up with a new method in the future for analyzing the data a new algorithm let's say three insufficient fund instances in six months or five and one to ear this method would preclude them from implementing that on a computer and that would preempt their idea which is the issue of preemption co operative is looking backwards your honor and that is it took my proprietary algorithm it co opted it i had it you have to have already have the algorithm because as the court has noted the patent doesn't supply any algorithm unlike in deer the patent says put in whatever it is that you think it's a good idea to use to analyze their credit worthiness and then the computer will run and chew through that data and tell you based on the criteria you provided whether or not that person is a good credit risk and i think to suggest t his quarter or any other that it somehow inventive or non abstract to tell a company that's already gathering data by computer hey you should use your own method to analyze that data is not very they may not all be abstract so they may not fail at phase one but for example in the in the end fish case that's a data processing software  claim in a manner that is not preemptive and in that case the court said no it's or course that yes it's specifically enough claimed that we're not as worried about preemption and it's innovative because you created this self referential data structure which could then be used by a computer and that's what you're claiming you're not claiming always of processing data and you're not claiming all ways of processing data faster you're instead claiming this novel structure that you created that happens alice i know this court i hope this court doesn't have any issue with the miss ability of the of the evidence there was an argument below that mr charice citation to portions of his expert testimony saying our experts said there was no other system that could do this we came back in opposition and said the expert didn't say that and in reply they said it was a script error which notably they had repeated but i want the court to realize that the portion of the record that they're now citing is mr acharya is argument to the patent and trademark office which is also obviously inadmissible cure say i don't think it's particularly  controversial that you need admissible evidence to oppose a motion for summary judgment and that it was their burden below to show once an objection was made to it which we did object to show that the prof there were a couple of points i wanted to make on that issue just following up on things that this court has already raised as judge jury noted without the rules there's nothing no algorithm is provided and i also wanted to point out that there transformative step and far from dear recall that it was construed at their request there's electronic data that's gathered a computer reads it and transforms the data into electronic data that a computer can read which i would suggest your honour's is non transformative or at least extremely subtle as to how that transforms anything as judge jury said data comes in and data goes out that data was readable when it came in by a computer because a computer read it we know that it's also going to buy a computer when it comes out so i don't see a transformation and certainly not patent of the transformation that would transform what is an abstract idea in this court as you have all analyzed has said repeatedly that the analysis of data without more and reporting on that data is an abstract idea i don't see anything here inventing i don't want to quiz on the court's question but i would i would suggest it depends on what the steps are the steps here i would submit that were claimed were parsed down to a very minute detail you know they have a step that says gather the data then check the data then apply the algorithm then gather more data and so you can break what is an abstract process and is the normal operation of any computer get data read write compare boolean write again you can break that down into a bunch of steps and so i don't think it's the number of steps per se that confer belittle but rather the substance in those steps and and what it is that those steps bring to the table and again as one example and fish if one of those steps is creating a huge for unknown data structure and then utilizing that to analyze the data i think that would be patentable and you know this carette of the battle it is rendered abstract because the claims can't do that because you don't have any rule you have no way of analyzing the data with jacques chirac so i would say that the rules here are the rules governing pattern of rest which are well known in the industry and we wouldn't want to claim those because each institute has its own proprietary center for us and so we're saying let's help those institut putting your your rules into a piece of software having that piece of software transform the data you're coming in so it's computerizing up prior practice that's your invention  and then adding and transforming it and then ultimately telling get going a report to say whether that the data is certified against that that algorithm which is algorithm was complied with it would just have human errors and it would have various problems with it and so here we're actually saying put it on a computer which is we think not abstract have it checked