important distinction here and that is whether something is used for instance in procedure to access a financial product or service versus something that's actually used in the management or financial product or service what was the standard that people apply in deciding whether there is a c  security technology this is not any sort of financial technology it's a security system it's a security technology that according to the patent does not care about what sort of web page it is protecting for  is certainly fully set out there in the sky through talks about use in a financial product well i don't think that the use even in the accused products for instance in this case i don't think it's used in the practice sort ministration of the financial products or services this is a security system and it's a serious security system on the website that when you access the bank website and you log in it's an authentication security system that's not part of the financial product or service in part and part of our evidence of that in our argument on that is we've pointed out in the brief is that many of the banks that were defendants in the underlying lawsuits bought the security aspect of this from r s a because the petitioner in the i p r be talking about later which is not a financial institution it's a security company these are separate modules within the systems there's the security system to gain access and then there's the financial product or service aspect of the online system i think an important thing think about here is the the overall question of sound the question if you only financial institutions provide financial products or services and the court said no clearly other his situations besides financial institutions can provide financial products or services we're looking at the flip side of that coin today and that is does everything that a financial institution does qualify as a financial product or service or as part of the administration or measurement of financial product or service i think the question the answer that question has to be no i walked into my bank last week to go to the positive check which is part of a financial product or service and when i was walking to the front desk someone offered me a cup of coffee the vases brewed coffee that's not a financial product or service but it's something the bank does there are security cameras in the corner of the thanks looking if people coming in and locks on the doors this is if the bank installed a new security system on the doors i would argue that's not a financial product or service and i have as we have interpreted the claim language not to be limited to financial institutions but to anything about the sales then the statutory construction being urged here and relied on by the board is one that would cover any operation used in a selling that by anybody including the gas station including the seven eleven so electricity and glass concrete and a check system pencils and which seems a little overbroad i think i think that is overbroad and that is for the point we're making it we mention the analogies and our briefs about where do you draw the line if you're driving to the bank is that part of the financial product or service if you're walking through the door if the bank is using the too at just to wrap that up the two points on the cd milage billeted were there's a procedural defect the board did not even consider the claim language at all as i mentioned it relied on senator schumer statements the statements about potential applicability in the specification and the fact that we had sued banks and substantively as we've been talking just now this is not actually a financial product or service it's something that i that can access other services including financial products or services that however makes it a more of a in general utility patent and the patent trial and appeal more in the a t p decision which we cited in our reply brief came to a different conclusion they said when you have first of all he said that you have to look at the claim language or one of one reason for getting to the merits i guess you get this if you're right about c p m and wrong about the merits you have one the issue here surrounds the security of the preferences file and that's the file that houses the user's authenticity stamp the secret stamp that appears on the screen so that they know that they have often faded to a valid  and the primary problem with the board's decision here was that it relied almost exclusively on extrinsic and that dictionary definitions rather than the specification how that word is used in the claims if you read the specifications of the one nine one patent the word locate or location some variation thereof is used eight times in the patent and we can separate those mention the second bucket it uses is describing not anything about locating where something is but about the position on the screen for the user to find stale so that was it column three line five also on  column six lines fifty seven fifty eight refers to a non authenticity stamp which can be displayed in the location where the authenticity stamp would normally be displayed again the position on the screen for the stamp and then also column nine lines thirty nine forty that the appearance and location of the authenticity stamp again referring to the position of the stamp the other three uses of locate in the pattern referred to something being hidden or its location being obscured if you look at appendix eighty nine says the location of the thirty three this is referring to public keys it says although the public key itself can be distributed it storage location should remain as obscure as possible not in the context of the preferences file but certainly another use of locate where something is hidden and then finally in appendix ninety two column nine lives fifty three fifty five it says preferably the preferences file is placed in a random directory to help obscure the location the preferences file and facilitate the creation of unique user particularly to systems and methods for  nothing financial as such and not other than the implicit that and when we get all this done we want to make money but that's in every patent ok so clearly that can't make it a c p m then if you look at the summary of the  line i guess just lining fifty or so before you really get any discussion of something that sounds like financial activity any merchant computer and bank computer are interconnected via second network referred to as a payment network the payment network represents existing proprietary networks that present that sounds like it left over from a prior patent that really has very little to do with the claims this is a continuation it is a continuation of that sounds a little bit like it was left over which is ok you can do that it doesn't sound like what's playing here has anything to do with those power grabs and that's the only place in the whole claimed invention is particularly useful in a financial product or service in the background of the invention section the only website this described is a hypothetical website called w w w dot big  when you get to column six of the patent that there is a reference to the particular usefulness of the claim convention in conducting online commerce transactions and then as you referred to your honor common leaven of the patent there is a lengthy description of the use of the claimed invention specifically by banks and other financial institutions to engage in finance related activities in fact the only real world example given of what the claimed invention is useful for in this patent are for directly for the administration practice and management of financial products and services what the p t had this done to evaluate there was a about what is disclosed and claimed in the patent which are entitled to see substantial evidence that standard of review about the particular usefulness of the patent described of the claimed invention in the context of the financial services it doesn't matter whether you're a seller or a financial institution in the ordinary you know pedestrian sense so we've already vastly expanded this statute so now the question is is test tell me if my understanding of the following two things is right my understanding is every single one of the cases where we have felt c p m that claim language we first to selling or some other commercial ship two of the patents if you refer to an incentive which was not specifically construed to require something particular financial or not and the specification or the written description that patent examples of incentives that were but that's that's the only arguable example where we could argue about what incentive that what incentive has and it must have some sort of bad for everything else there's actual claim language second factors to determine whether the claimed invention is used in the administration practice or management of a financial product or service everything is used in europe and then in the craft of selling is there something in the room description that describes this particular claim convention as being useful in the financial services context if the answer is yes the board says that weighs in favor of flying with it's a financial product or service there other things there that wait in favor of finding it to be either a financial practice service or an up to financial product or service one of those factors might be if you sued fifty banks and nobody else for infringing these claims if that's the case raised it doesn't need to be decided here because here the only practical use of the invention it only uses in real life described in the patent self are for online banking and think about what this invention is useful for are not useful for the vast vast majority of websites you don't use this because you're going to the washington post to read the news our law from website wouldn't use the time nothing and nothing  there is because what the patent says and this is what the court found it at appendix pages seven through ten the board found that the patent describes a particular need when somebody is going to be sharing sensitive information on a website for that person to feel comfortable this is this is about the issue that if somebody is going to enter their walking and password for the bank account if they're going to enter their credit card information they need to feel like they are giving that on line commerce if it is the sharing of that information for the purpose of moving money from one party to another party that is very clearly a financial product or service status that is at the heart with what about if it's an interest in itself to security number in order to obtain that does not involve moving money from one place to another i do your honor i think the majority of times that you go online does not involve that if you're going to access information about a story about a restaurant if you're going to read the news if you're going to go online to see what time movies are playing all of that has nothing whatsoever to do with this invention the claims here have particular issues in the context of websites that require you to exchange no it doesn't it does and so suppose there is one lawsuit right and that defendant files a c p m what does one does that and that happens say to be against the  likely be a technological invention that would be sort of over with we don't get to that yet who makes me think that the threshold determination would actually cover electricity and glass and desks and he tracks systems and paper and pencils and everything in computers which are used overwhelmingly in the world in businesses know where this is all going to be in c p m and unless unless they take fall out under the technology  absolutely not your honor and that's again that's not how the fortified statue and that's not how it was applied here there are a number of factors or two in your electricity example if the patent is about some improvement to electricity act has to do with data processing has no particular connection or utility specific to financial products or services the board has on many occasions found that that does not meet the refiners will product or services let me ask you this question could your invention be used by me and i want to or by the company if i want to go online to electric company and ask them what was my usage last april and they say to me you have to identify yourself with yourself a whole period of which i'm concerned about security so we use your system can be used in that  if you're not using it i assume you're using that if you're using the website because you want a term and whether the bill correctly or not in an instant i want to find out how i'm doing turning off my lights at night so i want to know what my  and if the invention was used in that context that would not bar it from being a c b s knowledgeable pack just because as he was just outside of the financial products and services that really gets at the question i'm wondering about if the invention can be used both in and out of financial services that make it a c b m or keep it from being a c p m or has nothing to do with it it has something to do with it but it's not it is not a binary issue if the the response brief we addressed that in our great brief and said no that's not all or claiming our primary point here the procedural point was that there does have to be some reference to the claim language though and the board here didn't even cite claim language when it went through its analysis and determined that the one nine one patent was a c b and patent he said that all of the cases that we cite apply the same methodology and they don't as we also pointed out in our briefing every a financial product or service it wasn't necessarily a term that said sale or price or anything but they at least went through and did the analysis and said there's a link in the claim that ties this to a financial product or service we've still not heard any allegation of a term in our plane that links this to a financial product or service the closest we've heard was judge laurie your questions at the beginning of my arguments before asking about data processing and things of that nature which of course we respect favor of determining the patent is eligible for covered business meant that at review however we do not find covered this is met the pet review available for pets they claim generally useful technologies that also happen to be useful to financial applications you ask about other websites that might use this and this statement was made earlier that the only potential utility for this is in the financial industry i would suggest that social media sites would be good candidates for this any place bring one or more particular statement that was made was that financial uses are the only way i think the language was concrete one called out it was because they are the only concrete what's called out the spec but i still think that that those are examples of how this might be used and i think that this path to still a general utility patent that  is not tied necessarily to the financial service industry i see my time's up there know the question