one you make statements about the claim should we assume that those statements apply with equal force and effect to every single one of the claims no your honor but you know the burden of proof was on  on a universal while to show that every claim is individual only invalid under section one of wine and we don't think it was our burden to organize the claims  one separation between a claim this is this that there are claims that are directed specifically to bar codes another is that there are claims that are just wrecked it specifically to identifiers something sometimes specifically bar codes that have at least at least three specific values or in many of the claims for specific  it is even more inappropriate where the claim is recites specifically a barcode for example even more inappropriate where the bark claims are site for example a bar code sure but i do not think runners are required where the court the court below did lump everything together to just aggregate everything if in fact the love together you know fine that was the well we contend rather strongly that every every claim was wrongly you can i can i just get on to the may i mean the the abstract idea here here at least for some of the claims rights is that the district court said they were directed toward quote communicating information about a piece of mail by use of the market is that ok that's yes you're the end of it and your answer to that you started to get to it a little earlier is that you should be sa one reason is that for example if your honor i want to look at clean thirteen of the zero three two patent discipline tabulation of four specific values to create a unique identifier signed by those who just look at claim one of the i like we have here we are equipped to go through all of these claims am i wrong or my right the basis for at least the court including that there was an abstract idea in some of the claims at least was because they construed the claims as big directed to communicating information about a piece of mail or using a market well you're writing your own or you could go further that was the only abstract idea that the court found in the in the courtroom it is is that every single claim was right but so let's look at the ones that are dealing with the barcode is it your position that because the communication of information is done through bar codes in the claims that's what makes it not abstract though that's only one factor your are but the thing that received the most emphasis in obtaining these patents and was that the use of the sender generated the creation and use of the sender generated unique identif specific what is set up to well this is the single most important thing in my view is that and most prominent in the prosecution history is that is the creation of this sender the receiver has access to that information be the computer showed you are in coding for your coding particular packages and given that code to somebody else they insert the code and out pops some of that information step in all of the planes i'm trying to get an idea to watch out for the claims doing through that barcode down a part sender created that far that is exceptional in your role different whatever they're well they're doing different things  one is proof of vital reliable confirmation directly from the sender instead of communicating with the post office and finding out that they believe that a certain person sent you this package and then having to check it before you're going to find out whether in fact it's just skies that's from someone else that's got anthrax in it or whatever you were conferring directly with the sender this is a package that they sent you and it other claims you're getting the contents of the sender your isp establishing a computer doing anything different than i could do without the benefit of the computer yes it is and in the end some of the columns and rows and here we're not talking about just any kind of identification we're talking about it identification that is generated in a specific way by the may please the court the concept of communicating information about a mail piece or using a marking on the mails packaging is abstract and it's abstract whether the sender offers the communication or not it's abstract whether the content of the communication itself is general or specific and it's abstract whether the communication is made by use of a pen and written in english or it's made by use of a park and often they'll fix everyone a secur conventional computer time not in an abstract concept communicating information about a mail piece my use of a market so on putting my return address sticker on a piece of mail that's a marking right that's really for it was you can't take a practice that was done three computer age and then obtained x claims now why is that meghan a track i got there what you can't do it's been around too long likewise it's obvious but why does using pencil and paper historically it's problematic if now that we're in the computer age parties are able to attain a twenty year long monopoly using shooters in their most conventional way to perform to store information to computers communicate over the area now if the court has any questions about any particular claim of any of these atoms i would be happy to discuss a particular cla the district court then after reading the briefing from both parties at appendix page pate examined all the claims and found that for quite could be considered representative based on the arguments that were raised below and those were based on those three categories the guys discussed them with the district court did was evaluate those particular planes and that appendix pages twenty one twenty three further addressed all o clear there is far more than that we never would have gotten any patents if if there had been merely this abstract idea the specifics are not of ancient lineage in fact there is no evidence that the additional features the the of the defendant to show no new inventive concept as a matter of law they've provided no evidence of that micro says it's their burden to show no presumption moving the location of where the identifiers created and bask in the act it's a problem how do you filter people the way they want to be filtered and this is the solution was well if you put it there customizable filtering criteria at the same location remote location where you're doing the filtering well here we solve the problem of having a sender generated unique identifier by concatenating information such that the sender can generate