utility for the asserted claims it was no longer possible to view the claims as simply using a computer as a tool because under this court's case law the prohibited mere use of the computer as a tool means that in computer functionality to well known business practices it doesn't satisfy that checkbox or performing conventional activities on a computer it doesn't satisfy that checkbox either instead of regarding method nothing a specialized exploded general i would disagree with you particularly your honor with identifying an outlier and that's why i focused immediately on the clean construction because the claim construction sets forth inventive application in other words the claim construction those things never done before in the semiconductor testing arts it was specific analysis of passing semiconductor company that's not done  before instead the conventional semiconductor tester was only going to look for pass fail without any regard for what utility might come about if you look at the past incompetence and do some some extra work with so you your invention is to add to the really nothing more is it then simply saying something that does not fail but nonetheless is not as high a quality as we going to insist on for certain purposes what with book your are dismissed that by saying it is merely that but a fair characterization i'll strike the merely it was it was that and more because what it permitted when you were identifying outliers you had two particular improvements in the machinery that were never before realized improvement  was you can now do grading of reliability classifications without doing a nd battery of tests that was revolutionary then the nd improvement and this is mentioned in our briefing as well is that you can use the outlier outcomes for a test and just determine if the testing protocol itself is sound and the last column called between the pattern goes into this in the most detail but what that means is let's say if you have two hundred tests on a complement or thousand two hundred tests across all the confines of wafer you find that test number one hundred creates a certain outlier fingerprint then you find a test number one hundred and fifty creates the identical outlier fingerprint well that's a very strong clue now to the operator that ten thousand one hundred and fifty among the test protocols are redundant and you can eliminate one if you look in the background of the invention there's a lot of discussion about how important it is to limit the amount of testing that has to be done to create a system and invention a new technology an improvement to the existing technology that lets you actually compress the testing protocol for future tests so it's not just reliability classifications it's also good also creating this possibility that the operator can now improve the test rig itself on on an operational basis so how do we know that the outlier limitation improved in existing technology there are three reasons we know that for sure their best data and instead all they could come up with war items of prior art that just did the pass fail the what would your honor just price you're calling the in between just wasn't thought of that wasn't done in the prior art nobody recognized the advantages that could come come about from using that the nd reason we know that this is an improvement to an existing technology is the ability to do the reliability classifications like i just mention in the greatest detail in the preferred and body when it talks about critical marginal all good so but you can go from there and then the rd reason why this improved an existing technology is what i mentioned it permitted the operator to actually improve the testing process itself can't understa how important it is or can't overstate of so the specific improvement in the way the outliers change semiconductor testing equipment is is embodied in the claim construction it improves the functionality of an existing technological process and because of that it lines up beautifully with prior cases of this core where it found similar things and found path knowledge ability and  know the catalogue of cases i've mentioned in fish a and what's more there is a specific implementation so when i mention the claim construction for outlier it actually had quite a bit of detail in it implicit in the claim construction one had to find a statistical baseline that's the starting comp test among the two thousand samples the nd part of identifying an outlier is if you eliminate the failures that doesn't used to test excess just using preassigned control emits so you lexicography because there was a sort of art known use or connotation for the word outlier the connotation in the prior art was a failure we're not using the word outlier here in the context of here there's a pure clean construction here where it's got to be a stray above or below that statistical baseline but one that does not fail we have a middle is the statistical baseline of the black circles that go above the limits those are the failures and then the white triangles above and below that statistical threshold are the l  step one of alice k p n we would submit is an is an excellent roadmap or contains an excellent roadmap for how to proceed k p n of course starts with finding what is the focus of the claim what is the asserted advancer of the prior art in this case that certainly you look at what are the goals or or the intended results or desired results from the focus of the claim so the goal and the intended or desired result in this case will were the things i just mentioned more generally improving semiconductor testing equipment improving reliability testing in semiconductors the testing to this isn't with the claims recite the claims of bottom side proceed so the key point in k p n enough and this is so but the bow on it is that as long as the claimed limitation is not simply claiming the intended result that there's something more there's more outliers to be designated in any suitable match now what we hear from deaf today is that the unconventional aspect is the identification of outliers but of course this court's precedent says that the abstract idea cannot itself supply the unconventional aspect st step to ask me something other than the abstract idea because an abstract idea no matter how novel or not obvious is still an abstract idea and when council said that these claims lined up with the court's precedent i agree but it doesn't line up with it and fisher amdocs it winds up with s c p america electric power outage attack content content extraction all cases that involve the organisation of data and these claims really are about simply working izing data and selecting a subset of results we can see that from figure nine which in depth council mention that's a visual depiction of what an outlier is and in fact we can see in there that this is an operation that humans could perform  the data you show where they exceed the pass fail to control limits and then anything in the middle that stands out as an outlier that's all there really is here you know one thing that's important here the new construction that was proposed by indef in their briefing where they come up with a series of those rules were nowhere mentioned in the district court proceedings and they weren't proposing any claim destruction by in depth and in fact they outlier is it shows a threshold for the control in it but it shows no threshold for the outliers they simply stand out by the fact that they deviate from the bulk of the results by some amount there is no specific threshold set there so that means is that there is nothing in the claim that renders this not abstract or unconventional and so when i heard counsel talk about the various applications of outliers how it can be used to improve the manufacturing process those claim one and if claim one is you know what you pull and of matter yes your honor that's how they just record treated it and there's no separate argument in the blue brief that even if a claim one went down either claim survivor right that's correct  we look at column one the background of the invention there is a description column one line thirty through line forty two of what many semiconductor companies used to do and one of the things that it talks about is that the data they collected maybe analyzed to identify common deficiencies or patterns of defects or identify parts that makes a bit quality and performance issues and to identify or classify user defined good parts so these are merely parts that don't operate or fail control in it but these are user classified or user defined good parts with the semiconductor field used to call the known good parts so sometimes they would take their parts that come off the assembly line and say well this one is good for high speed part this one is good for medium speed application this one is good for low speed and specification is describing that and claim one and so we have everything we need here in the specification to confirm the conventionality of each of the elements of the claim is the portion that you just and understand that well it just apply slightly different definitions according to different circumstances of a simple binary pass fail if i understand your arms question i think what it could out of that is a good parts that meet the control limits but which still may be for quality reason something that you don't want to sell so it's an operable part but it may be of lower quality and that's the reference to user defined good parts that there was a known term in the semi sophisticated way so you can test for good you can test for bad but but column one doesn't suggest that the folks in the r were doing anything other than that there's nothing in between there's no chemical good enough for government work but that's where the claim construction is and i i will certainly dispute the idea that we're rewriting the claim construction or trying to come up with a new one in the middle of the pending page seven and not ok if you're ready i'll start the court says written description of the patent defines outlier as a test result that strays from a set of test results that did not exceed the control limits specified for the tested complement or otherwise fail and that have to this claim construction that there's a statistic baseline that's taken st everything outside that level of statistical similarity is considered a stray strays that fail to control limits fail strays that pass the control limits or can considered outliers that's why there's this is all due jumping straight off the page or just the words that i read to your honor's in the final the only final point i'd like to make for your honour's unless there are any further questions  that unconventionality absolutely under this court's case law is significant for alice and the particular cases that are best to illustrate this is our and even the connection as you know of the statistically with which you term the statistical statistically similar values i see that's in unconventionality within al a step one it's absolutely a factor and i just mentioned engine micro and even electrical power group even though that was a case that eventually ended up with a holding of no eligibility the reason why there was no eligibility in under under electric power grid was was because that there was no quote unquote new technology for performing the analysis function that's that's at the very end of the section describing alah step one in that opinion so the necessary implication is if there had been a new technology for performing the analysis functioned as described in that that decision then and there would have been a stronger consideration for passing  weeks what exactly do you think do you take from the word statistically similar values what does that suggest personally i thought that the grammar of the district court was a little  bit it hangs together but it took a little bit of time to read through it and understand it and i had to understand it in the context of the cited column six so if you recall i'm six it's very clear on what's going on at the detail level which is there is a statistical threshold so the deepest detail i could be one standard deviation among let's say the two thousand samples in the size in the trial could be two standard deviation another word to it what you're saying i take it is that the statistically similar values term means departing from the ideal group of results by a certain amount oh it's not ideal it's imperial it's on a case of when i say ideal i mean if you have three sets of test results you have the succeeds fabulous slee result you have the thales miserably and then you have the end up with three categories that that's right one is ready to go mil spec d perfect whatever you are within the tightest of your controls you have another group that have failed altogether correct you have a outliers and by virtue of your defining them as outliers that is to say they are not in either one of those groups then that that becomes a statistically similar value for each of those outliers isn't that correct not not at all well nothing you just said told me why that isn't an accurate description of the outliers and the term what the standard deviation is for the whole group what this is saying if that's going to be that your threshold this is saying if it passes but it's above one sigma we're going to call that an outlier right and we're going to call it a stray also but that's  so it's a stray slash outlier ok so that's why the let's say all the white triangles together and figure nine you wouldn't you want bunch them together and say oh those are statistically similar to one another the statistics similarity exercises st on the two thousand sample i used then but when you finish you have three sets of results one within the narrow confines to outside of the broadcom confines and three whether it's one sigma are or more is the what's left and that is those are by definition i take it by your description that you just gave me statistically significant right if i may or i sense which of course those those are significant in the context of the machinery and what you can do with them well yes thanks