and in the three seventy pound i like to focus on the seven fifteen and today and time permit and move on to the three seventy pat the seven fifteen pattern claims eligible subject matter and that's evidenced by three points in the institution decision in parallel c p m credit for proceedings first the claims address a technical problem with computer networks prior our computer architectures did not sufficiently allow a user to access interview both public and private data simultaneously in the p tab references this and second that problem required a technical solution to facilitate the delivery of an upgraded public and private data from disparate websites and third that solution in the seven fifteen patent as was the case  aspect of this case which is the integration delivery of public and private data from the backend server and that's for sided in claim twenty from delivering from the network to a user system and expressively also in claim thirty aspect and are going to rise and fall together so we argued them separately because they are separate claims i think your statement that in your brief that they were represented if your you agree now that they're represented that claim the seven one five does it say that the computer has to perform integrating step so in the seven one five patent in particular and claim twenty there's the re and that method is performed in the network and it's each of the steps or poured by the back end computer system and that's in both the preamble and each of those elements and as the  that the computer has to perform in a growing step well it's the it's the preamble as well as the actual language of the claim so the where ok so even if the preamble limiting the preamble integration as read in light of the specification is in the in the computer and this is why we argued claim thirty five separately because that claim expressly teachers a recites that the host computer the application  any type of personal computer network computer workstation i mean what is it in the specification that that recite anything other than generic computer equipment so for the system your honour's reference is the user system which is what receives the information the host system is what the liver's a and the specification does describe the user system in the host system like most software patents as being able to run on what was existing  describes the integration step in a few different places and it is fairly high level where it mentions integrating the public data and the private data there's a detailed or more detailed description in connection with figure three which shows private data and public data and then those two are aggregated through some aggregation utilities which ultimately coalesce in an interactive component that had web pages in it with the original store's website and when someone clicked on the link there would just be a check to see was this the link that would send the user to a third party website delivery of the integrated data which the public data portion in the private data portion shown on the screen some of the backend for that on the integration step is is in figure three so figure six is what the use seeing when the system integrates the private data which in figure six is specific account data associated with a credit card the balance things like that and the public data which was the my finance i'm sorry the my cards graph which is promotional information that's going to be determined by that private car data but the description of the integration is is the most detailed it is in figure three and it is correct but there were discussion and findings that were issued and just because it was in connection with a technological invention rather than an alice alice analysis does not mean those findings can bear on the the specific language used by the p t especially the language that is right out of d d r holden's about the computer roots of this patent to solve a problem specifically arise and computer systems with a particular solution is certainly indicative that this pattern is eligible especially one where the rule twelve stage and the district court has to credit credit that so yes it was not an alice analysis but the spectacular finding certainly can carry over home eleven mind sixty five and what it's discussing and again it does not mention specifically integration but as the flow of the word integrating is not there but the flow of data from the transact assets three o two which is the private information that's the my account information the private data and the public the content assets which is the public information and it shows how that data flows through the young conventional part that is unconventional is taking those two sets of data and integrating them in the back end for delivery on a network so they can meet you on a single screen simultaneously so there's nothing know how to do the integration yeah so the specification just mentions that the data is is integrated in the backend that that's as much of the how and the back end  mean at the final output if you're back end now and back in the host server so it's delivered as a single integrated data to the and it doesn't explain how that occurred it does not in detail explain the if we were at summary judgment and there was other evidence in the record sure the court can come to a conclusion but when you're looking outside the patent and that's all that's that is out there is the p tab findings which are intrinsic to the patent that should have been sufficient to may please the court the district court and with respect to both of these patents carefully and correctly ruled that they were ineligible under allen and i think one of the few points of agreement in the parties is that this is a and the claim language claims only the abstract idea of combining data from two sources for delivery to use or the district court correctly noted and as judge amounting noted there is no language in the specification that t computer equipment it literally describes computer equipment as any computer equipment a network as any network a data store as any data store and in that respect there is no  intellectual ventures attempts to read into that claim language trying to bring it within the scope of d d r holdings which addressed a specific problem with implementation of web technology all we have here is the basic idea of issuing in a bank saying her credit card statement that contains certain general data public data is available to the general public the latest interest rate on her from the bank and data defined as transaction history or balance records something that only a credit and account holder technology to overcome the alice hurdle here by contrast here we have clean language that says simply as the court is held in a number of other cases what you're doing is taking an abstract idea and being and instructing your reader to perform comparisons well those are comparisons as though as your line of questioning indicated those are comparisons between what the court held to be the claims of the d d r patent and the specification of the seven fifteen patent language that this does not automatically get imported into claims which are out of focus of the alice analysis when one looks at the broad claim language even coupled with the specification language which is an equally high level of generality  only way that they get to a comparison is to take specific details from the specification implicitly read those into the claims and then attribute them to the claims and that that's not the proper way of reading the claims and that's not the proper context for these claims was focus on the problem solution issue as opposed to here where we have an abstract idea implemented on general purpose computer equipment and respect with respect to the purported invented concept the contrast between public data and private data the district court quite rightly ruled that that was the subjective those were subjective criteria it was the bank that decided we're going to label certain data public rarely will certain data private and we're  then integrate those into a single document that resembles nothing more than a bank statement and that kind of subjective component based on business logic doesn't surmount the alice up to hurdle either with respect to the board decision and its impact if any on the district court intellectual ventures as not cited and cannot cite an authority that this is a mining thing that the this report was obligated to follow and it's not clear what it would mean for the district court to follow that ruling because it was addressing a jurisdictional issue at a different stage of the proceeding in the record in this case shows that with respect to a third patent since dropped out of the case this is that x three twenty one to three twenty five the board decided to initiate institute covered business method review and then proceeded to perform the alice analysis in the two steps to conclude that the claims adapt and were more likely  the reason them or didn't get to that decision point with respect to these them fifteen pan is it decided it didn't have the authority to make that judgment and the district court is not bound to follow it and it's not clear how it would follow a jurisdiction determination by the board that it's valid the patent claims a technical invention rather than primarily a business m with respect to the three seventy and unless the grass for the questions on the team we have a similar similar situation where computer implementation appears there as with the some fifteen patent only in the preamble generally not viewed as limiting but that's neither here nor there for present purposes and it describes the abstract idea of recommending products to customers based on past purchase history of an item of interest to a consumer scenario in which i'm in a bookstore i have a copy of moby dick that i'm going to buy the clerk recalls that people who buy movie dec also buy the scarlet letter and recommends that we were taking an idea and we're implementing it on a computer and that basic step of computer implementation doesn't survive the alice test at most it provides an improvement in speed and efficiency the kind that intellectual ventures versus capital one demonstrates does not create an inventive concept and similarly the inventive concepts that intellectual ventures points to with respect to that patent is tied to the clean language of filter data which is just like public and private data from the seven fifteen patent is defined solely as a product of interest to a customer namely its subjective input of the customer and determines the business logic of what gets recommended there's no nowhere in the pan is there an very briefly your honor judge a mouthpiece question about d d r holdings i think was particularly struck to me because j crew's distinction was well in our case we're trying to distinguish why this is  to the claims there was not but there was no as far as i can tell anything in the opinion about the how the d d r holdings is still is still president of this court and i think applies to this case and the only distinction was in question is what was the technical events and that's the problem solution analysis and d d r and to determine well what what was the problem you were trying to solve that almost always comes from specification and when you look at what's the solution that's when the show the advance in the question determine and do we have a real technological invention technical problem technical solution that's necessarily rooted in computer technology you have to look to the rest and to determine that i'm over my time unless