merely an abstract idea the court is friend the issue in was that me well your honor i can only tell you what the cases have said and applying whether something is an abstract idea namely it has to be  manifest it has to be quite obvious that it's abstract that is the only reasonable interpretation is that it isn't that the invention is directed to a decision body concept or a fundamental truth which you have told me what is abstract yes i have the two reasons one is that the claims are not that similar there's not a one for one correspondence as you see in some cases where it's merely a change in the preamble and a change in the verb form that is not this case there are quite a number of differences in the claims for example the claim a call for an event processor that interacts with in an insurance transaction database now the coin one is different it says the event processor is triggered by application events associated with the change in the information that's much more concrete and much more specific and it describes a software module that is triggered by events that's not something characterization if you look at the claims it calls for very specific things such as an insurance transaction database that's an electronic database that's not something a human stores in their head a task library database also an electronic database just of a human filing cabinets that's true your honor but these are and the court and the court below recognise they are electronic databases now you have two other aspects to that you know the specific client server architecture exist in the software industry which is a huge industry and this particular industry is directed to helping insurance companies process their their clients better it's not it's not an insurance it's not like off insurance for example which might be abstract it gets pretty close to that that we have in the record there this is fairly exemplary of the type of software patents that are out there that uses recognized software components such as a client server architecture it has some model components like an event process or has to be that this is a fundamental truth or a disembodied concept and i'd say this invention is far from that i would don't even know what the fundamental truth or disinvited concept would be it's directed to making claims processing more efficient to before there is a computer was serving as merely a calculator and in some ways it's a little like flu to calculate a warm when it calculating an asset value if that's all it's doing is doing the calculations  computer system that's the work computer does not appear in the claims i don't really think there's any dispute that this is a computer based system and the district court said as much guide wires breeds have said as much there is no way that this sub system operates without a computer that in the district court said that the claims folder was an electronic claims folder the databases are electronic databases and the client server architecture is something that is found in a computer architecture the client as for example of a p c the server has specific modules tasks and janine event processor i don't really think their visit has any application other than to be executed on a computer now it's written in terms of the computer software fact there are one hundred columns description very detailed description of the complex programming that is required to operate a system and i think that's also an indication that this is not nearly library database a server and invents processor in the task and a great and those can be nothing but software running on a computer which is a new machine and a task engine for example is a new type of machine or an event processor is a new type of machine it doesn't say what you have this is a one time not not as a rule or these and some of these components if you call this you know i could picture a person sitting there who got to claim humanity or he got a serious claims process or you have an individual who devises a to do this based on a review of a claim and they all go into a big ole mental filing invention it's just an african idea that can be processed who are well i don't think there's anything in this kind that can be done solely in the human mind and i don't think there's really any dispute about that the district court found that this was a computer based system i think  system that i think clearly passes any definition of abstractness i don't even think it's close to the line we have a real industry this is a technology technological improvement in software industry it passes a machine test it is a machine i think the seal is bank case one of the things it does say is that computer running software is a machine i know that doesn't answer the question but the district judge said it didn't pass the machine and i think that's where the district court comes at least was led astray the district court was also told that allopathy abrogated and that the concept of software can run on a general purpose computer was no longer palatable i think that's any particular piece of software while there are a bunch of things that mr jakes pointed to in the claim language that look like they might seem like machines in every case when you look at th absolutely so event processor is defined in the claim construction your honor as a feature that announces an event to the task engine task engine is defined in the claim construction as a feature that generates the tasks that need to be performed so to with task library task assistant these are not machine these aren't even software these are functions yes mr jakes has a need for patent application for patents that came out of the same basic application some of those patents have very narrow and machine specific devices performing specific things in fact turn out to be high level functions which is what software can for a machine into something that functions and the functions that are protected have you read our case yes i have you around them the copyright and the law to protect all the expressions self that you're attacking the functions and what we protect and those that well defined and it's there is a client in the server system and the question for this court is does taking a high level abstract idea and putting it in a general purpose computer the idea your honor is the idea of organizing insurance files in a computer doing this in terms of functional steps but you will look in vain to find the actual steps that are being performed in some particular order has mr jakes been defending a patent claim that actually was directed to one of the computer programs in the specification we would have a very different case and i wouldn't be arguing here that this was an patentable subject matter but this claim as interpreted by these claim constructions is not in fact so limited the only hardware limitations are a client and a server and so the question for this concrete dealing with real claims and people needing to sation because adventurous very concrete or honor it is abstract in precisely the way the invention when built it was abstract that is that invention too was a very specific business concept applied in a real world environment involving coal contracts nonetheless the supreme court said this is an abstract idea because you're not claiming a particular machine that does that you're not claiming a particular implementation you're claiming the idea  corner if it can triple absolutely is the idea of processing claims using that filing cabinet patentable absolutely not it's an abstract idea if you have a fiza specific real world implementation then it could be patentable but this is computer well i think for precisely that reason your honor there's no point to do so in bancorp decided just two weeks ago this court found system and method claims directed to a computer implemented invention for managing a life insurance policy to be invalid for lack of paddle subject matter and this court said the district court had correctly treated the asserted system and medium claims as no different from the asserted method claims for patent eligibility purposes while reiterating that the form of the no longer available that is foreclosed by a bank or and i think bancorp also says one other thing which is of importance which is as the court put it the computer in that case merely permits one to manage a stable value protected life insurance policy more efficiently than one could mentally using a computer to accelerate an intelligible mental process does not make that process capitalist and as your questions to accenture suggested that's precisely what's going on here in the computer does it faster maybe the computer does it better but the mere fact that you've taken an idea which was implemented in the offline world and put it in a general purpose computer so softly or make that software is therefore intelligible no you're on what reduces a variety of real world steps down to miniature pluses and minuses and does them with on a mississippi speed reliability that no human can achieve that's the software industry therefore they're all ineligible because they're doing something that was done before no your honor it having to do something that was never done before and they're not around you have to do it in a particular way and your patent claim is limited to that particular way your hon would agree with mr jakes there's not a clear definition you want to still applies just based on your work you don't have a standard no you're on you know your honor what i have is a series of cases from this court in the supreme court which apply the abstract ideas concept if i were to generalize it i would say you can't have a patent on the idea alone and not limited to particular implementations this court has tried various formulations so to narrow that down we have a machine or transformation test it's quite clear i think it is described to th information for insurance agents there are various steps associated with this even though it's a system claim but when you look at the way those terms are construed how do they do it they do it with an event processor well what's an event processor and  processor is merely a feature that announces an event to the task engine not a particular feature not a particular event any event any feature that serves that purpose is within the scope of their claims  rob absolutely your honor and i think that's precisely the one problem well your honor i think under bill c and mayo it's not only a one twelve issue there is in fact a one twelve issue here a different one which i would like to get to in a moment but i but i do think it is important to recognize that under the supreme court's precedent and under this court's precedent in system they're going to be present in any computer environment the only things that look like they might be machines addicks centuries urging were construed not to have any machine or specific software component at all they were any feature that performs this function any feature matter no no no or that it was limited to a specific new implementation in software in for example do that without looking at any prior are secondary consideration looking at any of that you just presented that evidence to the court but i think under the but i think even if that were not true under the supreme court's abstract ideas of all one of the things we should go back and have a look i'm going to bring you out i think there's no reason to send it asked us to refile simply identifying element by element eccentric can point to any element not present in the in the prior art system the relevant documentation which is before this court consists of eighteen pages  there is a testimony from the guy who invented risk master and there's the risk master manual and those are all you need to actually evaluate i would like to spend a little bit of time your honor on the section one twelve issue the indefiniteness issue the district  be affirmed on an alternate ground decided in the same opinion the critical language in claim one the only independent claim is invalid is indefinite because it recites an open markets group and such language is by definition meaningless the language in question covers and right well know your honor well that's the question if you take seriously the words can decompose into a plurality of levels from the group comprising these four all you need is one or more of two things from anything in the universe including but not limited to those four levels now it's central regionally in its current structure took exactly that position it said this means one or more and that's all i need then the district court said oh it means two or more from this list of four and that's all you need and then our reconsideration the district court said expenditures newfound urging where we need all four and only those four i suggest that that's not what the language of the claims with the language of else as well and that is more exams and the problem with that definition and the reason that open more crucial groups are not allowed is that i could pick anything out of the world a box and not up the average air speed velocity of a swallow in flight arguments rejected the claim in this language was added and then the examiner said that's the reason for allowance and it's also worth noting that in the other parallel applications on the same specification with the same prosecutor the in that particular point you think you the district courts claim construction did recites the various elements like the event processor i think feature that performs a function it's a feature of a computer system so nothing wrong with that there's nothing wrong with high level functions  its execution of best practices and then it's as a tax task the system is a source of automated assistance a mechanism for making claims a dairy application to keep track of historical but then it is by saying this supports the vision of the claim professional because knowledge isn't a vision abstract your honor i think if you just focus on that in the task assistant in those words you might you might say something like that but the task assistant is a particular piece of software that is described here in fairly broad terms as to what it does but the functionality is completely described there if it describes it very broadly what it is but then this really tell us what it does well i think it did and in describing what functions it performs it does this guy what it does and when you're talking about software what it does and what it is are basically the same think how about how many hundred how much does the actual application if that's within the skill of the art of the person who could program it and this is enabling and we don't need to describe it more the method point here there's not any waiver that there are significant differences between the method claim and claim one have appealed we did that to streamline the case we thought my mom was our best issue and if we're somehow going to be held that that is abstract and that spills over to our our our main client would have to appeal every claim in every case and i don't think that's what's functionally equivalent alternative all four of them are required guide wires set up this village e that is a more crucial group therefore by being open it's invalid the first part is wrong it's not a market group to start with