court over sixty eight nearly six years ago and over simplified the claims to conclude that the recent nothing more than collecting and providing data regarding the delivery of an e mail this error caused the court to fail to software at the sender and the recipient in order to prove delivery of an email second there were systems that required the sender send an email to a third party and then the recipient would have to contact a third party to retrieve the email in order to get the tomcat patents solved this problem in the prior art first they tast the intermediate server between the sender and the reception with the task of performing the act that would prove delivery of the email in the first group of tom nine one three three nine and one nine nine they always cite the same limitation of recording a portion of the transport protocol that log between the immediate server and the reset the end by recording that dialogue and then providing that dialog a back to the sender even chief proof of delivery of that event and the second group of tomcat patents also solve the problem in a different way failure to deliver i gather that was also on the prior start that was also in the prior at that the indication of delivery there were different ways to do it your honor so for example  confirm that they actually received  stuff the server will say and transmitting data there's a code for that when that when that data that you know is transmitted what it was returned back is an ok that says i've received the e mail and that's the dialogue think constitutes the dialogue to take i'm sorry all components of that constitute the dialogue so what you're saying is you take a piece of that entire dialogue and you shoot it back to the intermediate dialog and introducing a intermediate third party in into the network and notarizing that information and when it got sent back to the stand that that's to me one way of understanding how all of these claims operate and what your novelty was in reading through the the disclosure what is the twist in these patents that that inventors what you know trying to come up with and then claim and that obviously the point was to create some system that verifies this information that's floating back and forth between the servers and so the invention was let's put it in a media server in there that's going to handle and interrupt information flow back and forth and put some kind of notarized edition on top of it so that it would have some legal effect in courts so that that's kind description of that it's report that information was preexisting dialogue information preexisting and the invention is recording it and then we have an intermediate server the dial up the dialogue communication dialog is simply used to communicate the email back and forth between the animated servant resetting the twister then recognising that if i record a piece of that which was not a conventional step recording that and saying that back  case involving the parent application to the time cow patents in this case the three seventy two patent which has the same limitation of recording a transport dialog i asked him what is your understanding of the it's not really practical to do that next question why is that not practical because you generate so much audit data it's not going to help you provided a mail notary service the details of the protocol dialog are not necessarily important not nearly so it's jus the recording of preexisting dialogue storing it retrieving it reporting it is not an inventive concept it is precisely essentially what the post office does with registered mail it is taking preexisting standard public protocol that was available since one thousand nine hundred two and simply selecting a vaguely defined portion of it to store it and then utilize the indications it provide this is about one to one eligibility and not novelty but what is known and conventional in any email infrastructure is s m t p protocol email servers are by nature intermediary they are displaced from the email client they contain dialogue that records are logs of dialogue that clearly show the transmission trail of an email when an email bounces there is a code and there is an indication that it was not delivered and the email client receives from the email server that information which of course is stuart and indicates to the end user what happened this is  other protocol hole the sender whether the message and receipt well the protocol certainly tells the sender when the message that wants and the protocol is available in the email server architecture to show the transmission from point a to point b that inventive concept at issue with our post contentions is that storing that or retrieving it is somehow an inventive concept that  patent under step two from an eligibility and pre computer certainly information was stored about the transmission status of the message and post s m t p that information of course is stored in some fashion at as is part of the logs that are part of the mail transfer is that joint year that they're sending what's unique is storing a computer well that's their argument and i would simply respond your honor that interrupt the dialogue intercept of a relevant portion and then not only storch their intermediates are with and they package it with perhaps something called an indication or  not precisely mention and intermediary server that avoids the cooperation of the email recipient so looking at the claims of one thirteen i would suggest to your honor that they're brought or than what you just just i guess i was referring to other yet there is some question about what the representative claimed she would be but certainly in the representative claims of all five of the tom cowpat there is no particular reference in the district courts thoughtful analysis of it's an email server or an intermediary server on top of an email server and simply recording that information because it's you school is a kin to the one hundred one in eligibility data gathering  categorization cases that this court has decided in numerous instances including one similar to this in i v v semantic there was a server that does what servers do it was in essence an electronic post office the court the email functionality of the claims as essentially a corporate mail it grabbed tags and codes and information and reported when there was an email filtering issue or a potential virus in the court one of two i want three for question your honor first of all of course links are ubiquitous in the internet modern internet a not world adding a link to content whether it's a message or a website to allow someone to navigate populated or at least presented as an example of generally claiming a link for what it does and in the one zero four patent that is what claim one for example does it simply is the addition of a link to a server it is part of the email transmission that is configured to download or be active so that when the link is accessed it indicates the link was accessed without anything more in the claims and so in an abstract step one analysis it is simply calling out as the district court in ally's the function of the link for what the link does without more as opposed to that it's just abstract well i would call it abstract in this context even assuming that this this patent considers links for the first time for its intended purpose a the one zero four pattern in the common specification for tom cow calls out tax and flagging as a pre or non link fashion of identifying something about the email being accessed so so for example if you read receipt in microsoft outlook as referee in the in the specification tags and flags to indicate someone has access content in an email or electronic environment it is well established and conventional and if the link is simply a generic internet protocol addition to in effect bring to email and i'm not suggesting this is the case because links were used before this but to bring to email some type of indication from accessing web content that's abstract i would have thought you had a focused on the limitation that is in the claim one of the one of for providing an authentic eatable information relating to the message including the indication of the opening as being where this became abstract that when one will and  accessed the link and that's why i mention the internet patents case because that seems to be the court's same concern in that case that simply using a link to do what it does and its very function would indicate we're authenticate exactly what the patentee tomcat was claiming in claim one that does what it does so to simply use internet hyperlink protocols which indicate something when a link is accessed as either invented concept or non abstract material is incorrect the problem with the top cow patents is this broad functional reference indications that result from certain things that happen within internet infrastructure were e mail it structure is not patentable subject matter and insert to simply recites the functional step this appears to be configurable or configured to execute it is either automatically when it is received by the email recipients email server or accessed or clicked by then does that mean that it is access and viewed by a human being or landing at the server and that the plain in ordinary meaning of that claim one which i would agree are on or would be someone has to either activate the link or has a setting their email client that allows automatic downloading at and so least under the plane claim terms the link is activated at the recipient server  some function typically the recipient and it again just returning to the lack of inventive concept any time someone access of access is a link and related web content and navigates to a web page there are footprints there are indications that result from that is that sort of generic result of hyperlink protocols and to simply collect that and use it for it indication is neither inventive nor patentable subject matter i have only thirty seconds left i would like to address one last item with regard to the patents routinely in the claims language it's or computer technology and time and again this court has said simply taking the notion as we have here of a well established conventional concept or abstract idea and saying apply it to an email technological platform which is what the patents do is not a not there has to be something more and adding a link to an email or using protocols is not inventive  thank you your honor just to pick up where my colleague left off we completely disagree that this is simply adding a computer to perform these functions i'm still confused as to what here your honor that the twist was recognizing that if instead of using that system you know we're going to use a system where we record a portion of the s m t p get p dialog and provide that back to the sender to protect the sender in the situation where the