it's two zero one six dash one three one eight capital dynamics versus cambridge associates two thousand and also that the inventors were lauded for their contributions it's also significant in this case i think that the board that found a violation goes to both of the things that you sad about this solving a significant problem in the financial equity industry and the potential relationship between a one of three in sensually pure mathematics you probably would find it non obvious without if you counted everything that was new and didn't appear in prior art but you would say they're really sophisticated about it none of it matters if the only innovation is the mathematics why and it looks generously what's going on here the mathematics ok well my understanding your honor is  came along and then at some point after that you know they did try and start patenting business methods bilski confirmed that business not it's could be well as has also taken the position that business methods could be patentable so in this particular case i mean just just i guess i'm speaking for myself it has seemed to me that that can easily be understood i'm not sure if this was the intent in a way that depends on the breadth of the phrase business method if i had a have a have a message for doing something that helps me engage in business it might actually be focused on some technological component in the might still call it a business method and so the supreme court said in bilski there's nothing there's no category that we're prepared to call this method that we think the statute like i mean in significant part because there is a provision added to the statute at some point that seemed to confirm that they something under the heading of business method was included that doesn't mean that if a particular kind of business method in which all the innovation is essential in mathematics or maybe even essential a v entering into legal applications that those wouldn't be independently  e eligible under what then became alice right well as far as the alice mayo tests go you know we're looking at  a new formula that will help the rubber curing process you're still going to rubber in the machine you're still going to heat it it's now this is going to wake you up with a formula that will determine the exact timing at the exact temperature that will perfectly c rubber that is using math to improve a physical process but what your case feels more like and i know it's more complicated than this and you're scaling function is more complicated than this but i'm not particularly good investment and fund categories and if you maintain forty forty forty thirty thirty at the end of each year when going to reevaluate leif's which i'm it's almost like you're scaling function right it's like this is the asset distribution that will potentially result in the greatest value now i'm being unfair to my husband because his home it was actually tremendously more complicated than that but it was so complicated i ceased to listen as he was talking about it so all i got out of it was some forty thirty thirty concept and but and  that's the novelty the novelty of what he did as he came up with this idea of this percentage of this this percentage this and this percentage this and he thinks that would bring us the greatest overall value with the least risk why didn't done exactly what you're claiming except more complicated formula for sure invention it's the application of the scaling function to the crash of the private equity investment you want to compare the private equity investment to end of each year we're supposed to re evaluate and reallocate the funds so that they maintain the thirty forty forty balance or whatever right so technically it's a process it's an iterative process done at the end of every year and you know ten years ago these were perfectly  financial data as an employee apply a particular formula to it and then determine a value problem promote innovation these are novel and new techniques that should qualify as a process you know that's our argument basically they certainly can't argue with that argument i mean that argument ma anymore meaning if that's your argument any you probably need to go down the street to congress us right well the application of the test looks at whether there's an abstract idea and it's a two concept and the issue in the second part of the test is is there an inventive concept and we believe there it's for various reasons but isn't it abstract inventive concept i mean just describing it as an event that's i mean it's performed on a computer i know and trish just recently this court talked about the fact that a general purpose computer doesn't do in the claims so i think that's anywhere  well your honor and i think specific application of the two port test would establish that there was an event of concept here and  mathematical algorithm the rather how novel for updating alarm limits used actually a just get an alarm minarets it's still not patent eligible it's math that's all that we have here like to use my time and our argument to address three arguments that appellant's me the first one is that because the board found that the patent claims are eligible under one of three that they therefore erred i think if they weren't  to use in prenatal exams all those were novel discoveries but they weren't patent eligible because they go to those three things those limited three things that are not eligible under p so the argument that this that the board found that this patent was not obvious in light of the long patent and therefore it is aired is not a novel argument it's been an argument that has been made and rejected most recently by the supreme court in mayo when the government said don't decide this case on one no one decided on one to one of three and the supreme court said we declined that invitation because it would make one a one letter the second argument made by palance is that the board was mistaken because it didn't apply a complete preemption test and here we are now again that that is not novel argument that argument was made in bilski where hedging was limited to the energy markets and supreme court said no not good enough in mayo it was a narrow preemption of a correlation between  in a hurry also said complete preemption may be a sign that one to one is is implicated but it's not required and then finally  consider the arguments made by the petitioner by cambridge and that this was pure math i consider the actual claims issue which are for example claim one that just has three data gathering steps a math and then it asked an oral argument and before the board may fifth last year what decides the math is knew him and there was no response that was quintessentially math is one of those examples that is just not patent eligible no matter how groundbreaking it is and that's just an assumption here all that alan's claim is that of us and that's in your view even if ground with regard to the morgue there was a substantial amount of evidence that was in the record regarding various techniques that could be used  it would have been helpful i think that if the board considered the preemption issue it would have found that there was no preemption here