jurisdiction by my co author last week there have been fifty two presidential decisions dealing with the abstract idea exception most important which in my view is the entish case which made a stink in between using computers as a tool for affecting other results such as analysis and bilski or improvements in computers functionality themselves and i think the developed and claimed was a series of various steps where they had a remote node a user would be presented with an interface would make optional service instructions those would be transmitted and they're not they remain generic it rejigger generic computers well one of the things we all understand is that when you're improving a network in order to make the invention useful that's useful to whoever's on the network and they're going to be a lot of generic computers they're the claims are program instruction beyond the various steps that are laid out in the claims and he read scripture these are these were all steps that were carried out by individuals and let's say on their own again i'm having problems with  the you are describing steps that individuals have implemented on their own upgrading their computer humming not sure characterized in that way you have to upgrade this system in order to carry  invention it's not just an individual i don't know doing it but when the systems upgraded it is presented to the user so the user can use the system in order to upgrade their program and to effect bug fixes and programs the user has different operating systems and depending on the operating system involved some of this is distributed computing operation and depending where you are you have a different operating system the problem i b m was faced with was that the way  to implement bug fixes would vary depending on the operating system which is out there in the field so their solution to it and it is a centralization was approached are you saying yes so what they do is they move the operation into a central so strange this point but to copy files from one location of a computer to another was a time consuming operation and sometimes other vested intervened so you had to stop the copying copying means moving from one location to another and then they say if you have mouse traps and if someone designs a better mousetrap which catches more mice generally that should be eligible in this case the computer that i b m designed the copying function was an improvement over previous computers and therefore under eligibility should be the claiming one is no i wouldn't agree that you're out of the even though it doesn't tell you how to do it well it's you require that level of detail then you would index here make this case different from intellectual ventures i don't remember all the details   concepts that are involved but in both cases and all patents what we are dealing with is an abstract concept that has been imported into the realm of the computer world and so certain things do fall out of  that fact and in both patents the claims that were identified as representative claims are drafted in functional language they are results oriented they are not a how to they are a functional statement and judged by getting directly to your question i regard for example that the two to aid you said where does it say how to do it you're absolutely correct that it does not say how to do it and in fact your hon artifact of the timeframe from which the specification was drafted or not the patent as drafted in the claims as drafted do not set out the steps that would be required the patent does not claim a particular way of programming it central site and the patent itself describes that that concept existed in the prior art the background of the invention talks about the distribution of code there were different techniques that you could use to fix code to roll out fixes the alleged improvement in this was simply allowing a user to customize select what they would want to improve or what they would want to fix but so drawn to getting to your point about efficiency and functionality there is no guarantee of an improvement in efficiency there's nothing in the claim there's no objective measure efficiency which frankly is quite subjective as it stands but there's no guarantee of efficiency gains in this case there's nothing in the claim that would allow a reader of the patent to determine whether efficiency had been improved to the contrary the very nature of the described system might have the opposite result because now instead of having the network administrator who resides at the central location being in control of the distribution of software the decisions about what needs to be rolled out now you have individual users who are checking in to see if they are if there are updates if they need to have fixes deciding on their own they could just as easily bog down the network with additional and unnecessary requests whose word is that section one o one consideration your honor just goes to the inventive concept and some of the arguments that were made by by you locked in there briefing as a district court noted pausing in the middle of copying information and then resuming that that process this is an abstract concept and it's been brought into the woods more than just the pa background in column one for example at lines forty five to forty nine there's a description about how programs that copy files you know may be able to be paused and then resumed there might be a need to verify where to pick up or what portion was left over but that concept existed and i think that what this patent was directed to and what uniloc certainly focused on was the idea that this freed up the resources of the computer  and that that would have a impact but in fact the functionality of the the system is not changed the user's experience might be changed for example if an i t employee initiate a massive copying process and wants to leave at five pm on a friday they can press pause and then start that again on monday morning but the computer network itself the computer hardware that the network still needs to do the work here it's exact same but that claim is not directed to verifying that you are picking up the copying process at the point that you left off that is a function that falls out of using a computer there are indexes which  as you pointed out are not they don't rise to the level of an ability there are pointers there are different things that a computer would use that would be different and i might use for example i might use if i were copying something i might use a notation use a sticky note in the book to indicate where i am and this is the computer implementation of that kind of electronic bookmark operate can but in fact preserve all the people already copy trade doesn't have to go back and re copy that would that be an improvement of the functionality of a computer well i don't think so your honor because in the background it's simply talks about the computer simply being able to return to the point that i'm not having to recopy everything that you've already talked i don't think so your honor because that's just the way a computer functions a computer deals with allocate data across various sectors computers always have to know where things are they're always indexing and pointing to different places on in the memory so i don't believe that it would be an improvement in computer technology if the claim was drafted and directly to that but i don't believe the claim is correct drafted directly to that the claim is reciting a series of steps which are directed to an abstract concept and in fact we had used claim one of the district court uniloc has moved to using claim five which actually has now been invalidated through an i p r but for example the claim to that the content of claim to the method as described in claim one where the st and nd portions include blocks so blocking data that's kind of a concept i think your honor that goes to your question whether or not the computer technology that existed at the time was capable of tracking when and where data specification it talks about indexing and pointers which as you indicated does not elevate this outside of the abstract r ok are there any further questions on the two tonight i think we're ok if not i'm happy to see the rest of it thank you were directed to a database and the claims for dealing with creating and searching a database which the different types and action then you're talking about in this case and there is language there saying under step one we agree with the district invention is drawn to the abstract idea of creating an index and using that index to search for ready and retrieve data speckly suggests that the purpose of the index is different in that case has a different excuse me how's it different well in our case it's being used so we need to as a location for the computer to come back in and start the copying process it's not being use for certain yes but it's used for a different purpose it's used for you would ask before about how is it done it tells how it's purpose