pleasing chord never in the past two millennia has a human being taken a trip with a briefcase full of physical card catalog cards and been capable of making a card remotely into a physical copy of a book that replaces it in a briefcase like the notion of it's in transportation from a brick and mortar store or indeed your holdings that possibility simply never existed system capable of actually exchanging electronic documents and references wirelessly between distinct memories and different devices nor do they really instruct one to apply generic pewters to cataloging documents but the system is think what the difference was contra content extraction occurs security is that right there you have only two pieces of equipment you had what was it needed to be a general purpose computer and you had what was it needed to be input device or scanner that was it needed to be conventional at the combination is simply a you know reflects an algorithm or a mathematical calculation i mean that's that's what the supreme court precedent stands for through parker so i mean there's been this enough first problem here is whether or to exchange a physical document between two spaces the way that you do with this so the combining of steps that you have a memory in a portable device which is required by the claim to be either the portable transport device and you have a much larger memory aspects of what's done here that involves programming a computer that may be a general purpose computer at one of the elements of the combination but there was no new computer whose main point well that's not true because the portable electronic transport device only remember one of the key aspects of this and now we're crossing over very much into essentially and others argument and you know the problem with that is that we end up doing obvious this argument on a record without the grand theory factors we have laptops for the most part existing at that point much less cell phones that you could use for data in that manner certainly those didn't exist i think i had a model a flip phone at the time the most i was capable of was occasionally getting through the ri and we were walking we were walking around in flip flops we were walking around with you know this has my entire office on or you know three movies and several works so when we go back to nine hundred eighty four it's a different analysis and we can't use hindsight for what we think today's conventional especially when they're presenting as i said the obviousness analysis so this guy didn't intend portable electronic way that i didn't invent large scale said some of these things like the park tablet over parterre were being simultaneously developed at xerox as part of an overall project of an office automation system so what these people these two inventors learning flynn were part of this software well and did a software method i mean i know that right now people think software some dirty word i don't want to one i'm not one of them so don't take it that way software they came up with a document sub handling system routine which implemented through software allow writing a software routine they are putting together these are all that's what this park tab idea of this portable computer of active database the reference are talking and the transceivers that allows us to remotely exchange these documents which results in the innovative development of being able to interchange documents in your horrible memory so that i can walk around of this and i can have a hundred books out here even though i only have eight gigs it still fills up but you know i can click on something that hasn't been downloaded yet the reference for it all sudden bam it's in my tablet or my new reader or something else and you know the other thing is that you can't pull against these invaders i mean if i was the first person to come up with a concept of a human powered you know two wheeled vehicle with a line with all wheels and pedals you know if i was really the first person to give up without i get to claim all basic rules you know you can't say you're limited to the blue plate with the bike after you know the pink basket under the circumstances this is a software system from proving basically expanding the memory of the computer by allowing you access beyond what you're capable of containing on the memory of your computer i mean it doesn't feel very business methods in this isn't feel very inter software the one thing i'm blocking in your question is the invention that these people came up with wasn't limited to a soccer team it was the combination of all these things including that there is software that makes this you put into things and again no they're one of the problems not only did we not get to the obvious mistakes but the judge decided to issue one of one of order even though we had a full market hearing without richard play constructional oneself so i question that if you're if you're disagreeing with my characterization of what really this kind is about why not tell me what the judge did or didn't do tell me now why what argument do you have that there is some piece of hardware in claim one which is really a novel right and what i'm getting at is it starts by then a final port of portable electronic document reference trip transport device which what i'm saying is the specification acknowledges that at that time you know there was a part of town that was being developed and have been they've claimed broadly and they were allowed and i want to point out that in the fire in the p t o there were a couple things before the p c of that clearly distinguish what was going on here in j seventy three there's a page thirty five there was a petroleum abstract search system that used a computer and it specifically says you know contrary to their brief that it was on a xerox sigma six here in the blue brief and certainly they talk about how the portable electronic document reference to transport device is a concrete thing consisting of parts can be held in one's hand i don't know they're trying to call out that point out that it's different so don't you think it's not fair to say until the grey briefs they never separately argued any claims are there elements and i suppose we can disagree about that from my point here is the argument that they're making  are drawn on their face to the idea of associating documents with document references that identify where those documents exist in storage and then using the document reference to retrieve  computers and computer networks there's the ability to retrieve documents remotely from a great distance and to do so quickly the supreme court has cautioned us that everything could be reduced to an abstract idea that you can tell me a claim that say abstract idea but why is this an abstract idea of having an electronic system that has insufficient memory a portable one and using the software package of their creation to come up with a means for giving it access to orders of magnitude more data than it would otherwise be capable of it sounds like an that the claims are to a system and the system includes a distributed document handling subsystem yes and the panel just is explicit that the distributed document handling subsystem is simply a collection say it is so i just want to emphasize that between so with this case come out differently if they had in fact disclosed by line their actual code for documents of handling system that was now capable because never before had there existed assuming this is true which we have no idea on this record but assuming never before had there existed the capability out of all of retrieving large documents from a portable  suppose that had never existed before and they created a software package that made that happen that effectively expanded the memory of the portable software device in a way that had never been done before and it never even been capable of being done and suppose there a kinds of articles that said how great it would be if you could do this but nobody could figure out how to play so i suppose they wrote a software package that did that and they actually included the code here in this patent would that be enough i think if all the software in the code described you are involved an abstract idea always critical in that case was that the invention at issue went to improving the functioning of the computer itself and the supreme court expressly said that in one of its opinions right which is where d d r got the idea for and internet specific problem and internet specific solution first the claims here are not limited to the internet as opposed to other networks set the problem that's being described in the claims reporting to solve that says the problem is that storage eats where were an excess of storage capacity and the problem of limited portable storage capacity is one that has existed for centuries because as a human i can't carry all the books that a shop can hold just like in the background of the invention section of the patent africans said it's impossible for the mobile worker impractical for the do is describe a result and don't tell you how or what way should be used to implement the claims are invalid under one one and that's what the claims here do they are indifferent about the portable device it's seen you use the in the next or sleep documents but only source references but no matter how you come out on that question ultimately the device is just a general purpose computer as it's described and claims it just has a processor i mean i want to get back quickly to the idea that council raised and the ability to use these portable devices from across the world that claims do not require any remoteness between the portable device and the device that stores t all that has actual getting to is that it's possible with computers to achieve in a virtual function more quickly than it would otherwise be if you had to send a messenger from one part of the world back to some other part of the world's a library to get the documents organizing data and there's nothing at all in the claims that is inventive supposedly inventive other than this idea of using a document reference itself the idea of using a document reference ventures owns the three patents if you the first two of which generally relate to activities on the internet so the issue there was that this many claim even relating to the internet didn't have enough to not be a fall of the same thing was true into the internet was the basis of these two decisions is completely false it was other aspects of the analysis that led to the results of these two cases which of course were invalid because they were method claims that for other reasons were flying i also want to point out in this fact that you know that j fifty one comma lead in the very last two lines it talks about the portable electronic device being physically separate from the document handling subsystem  in also in the nine hundred seven patents to claim one of that patent talks about you know wireless links so there isn't i agree there isn't a