abstract ideas they have been tested by the jury below found valid and infringed on valid under one or two one of three and invent infringed by the senate the pancit issue identify confront and solve a very specific very real problem in the internet search arts at the time of the invention in two thousand specifically what the patents identified as the problem solved is the problem of far too many irrelevant search results that are provided in return to a search or when a word search was performed well you know i confess that the analogy was somewhat  right but is it not true that you have right in your own written description and analogy to a library isn't that what you're saying you're doing something and you even said to me to the examiner that this is just a very traditional concept we're just doing it on a computer sure what what the panty did in the in the illustration that is that is in paragraph two of those presentation was used a metaphor to describe the scope of the problem that he was confronted metaphor just to illustrate the scope of the problem we have all of this information that needs to be found and the closest he could come to was to say look ok if you have a library full of information what's the best way to solve this is the best way to solve this to just go word search everything which is what search engine sit at the time were do you do something different he did something different now in the analogy or that the metaphor that your honor is referring to he says what a hypothetical librarian might do in that situation would be to put information about all of these books on a cart right and so what the defendants have taken that to mean is a run of the mill library card catalogue mr gonzales repeatedly throughout the specification throughout the file wrapper prosecution uses the word label to refer to the run of the mill common ordinary meaning of the word label something that is on a package or on a book or on a card that describes something but we know from the court's claim construction order in this case in which the defendant willow argued that digital label should carry it's clean and ordinary meaning the court construed it differently the court said it's not a plain an ordinary label wilkens allah says done is something different from a plain an ordinary label the courts construction of digital label is something symbolic of unambiguous qualitative information about an item or think that's an unconventional use of that letter to index cards what also shall in a library something symbolic there's nothing symbolic on a car what's on a card information and actually what mr gonzales teaches is the opposite of a traditional car that might be found in a library which is just the information it's just the information itself there's nothing symbolic on the cart mr teaches is in his search protocol we're going to ignore the information we're not going to do a search based on the information we're going to do something unconventional something new something specific  rigid and unacceptable for purposes of online searching and he distinguishing disparages the category tree structure specifically and so his concept to use digital labels which are symbolic of information a bout a website this fundamentally different operation and far more flexible and eliminates the problem that he confronted in the art and that is too many search results that aren't relevant to what the searcher was actually looking so we disagree completely with the premise that defendant is putting forward that a card catalogue does the same thing at some point to me that and your written description of where you think that's what you talks about this gathering sequence and then that information is converted into something new that didn't exist in the art before and doesn't exist on a card catalog for example we're going to convert that into something new a digital label the digital label advancement where using the digital label structure what the searchers looking for can surely be found in a high relevance list instead of hidden in a sea of irrelevance that identifies his solution to the problem and then in the claims we know that his solution involves multiple steps primarily among those is we're going to get our information from the owner of the information or the creator of the website that step on that information is then converted into something new which is symbolic of the information that's a second aspect of the claim then according to the sort of claims when a search is conducted the search is conducted for and based upon the labels the symbols not upon the information itself which is what all of the existing search technologies at the time would do and what mr gonzales says is because the words themselves the information  or the information itself is vague and ambiguous you don't know what words mean out of context so his digital labels put context to the terms and that that makes them more specific and and eliminates the unnecessary irrelevant search results so that i'm not that i answer i through honor's question i still don't see the technological solution to th i see that you say it's on a computer but i am not getting from the written description or the claims of the discussion of the technology the way the technology has done differently or somehow gives you some advantage over what would be the abstract idea sure it's because it's a software implementation that the advance in the technology is the way the software functions and we know the software claims ten  claims where the information is collected is that what is what we're trying to understand what led the district court to decide as a matter of law this is not meet the requirements for the district court the magistrate judge identified multiple aspects of the claims that were non ordinary non abstract the district court judge then in a three sentence analysis under step one to say that this just saps track because a human could do it and that was the end of the analysis understand want as far as the technological steps being a software implementation that's the is that yes the searching is just searching for that and you'll get right and yet you'll get a very small subset of what you would get if you searched for what is a stand for schools offering scholarships to or that is certainly the advantage that the claims achieve is what your are saying and that is the technical logical implementation in the code that says ok instead of searching for this word which is what that word mary expectation would be i am going to instead of searching the data i'm going to search something that i have created separate and apart from the data that symbolizes the data which will eliminate all of the ambiguity yes your honor that is precisely correct like you have an example you have a chinese restaurant and if you search the whole country you might not get that line but if you search chinese restaurants in new york city it might come up described as as a host website not all the claims are limited to what his website would be a set of websites that have something in common for example all of the restaurants right so that's that's one element to the claims not a claims a directed website certainly results when mr gonzales talks about is the better results are achieved not because i'm just searching a smaller subset of websites mr gonzales writes about searching all websites on the internet but the result and the it advancement and the benefit is achieved because i am no longer searching for the information my search is not based on information which is ambiguous my search is based on something new which the court has construed as being a unconventional label something that is symbolic of information and that is where the advance in the art comes into play it is in the fact that we're using something symbolic we're not using the information good morning your hundreds medleys the court i'll begin by jumping right in on this issue of symbolic and does this symbolic somehow make a label special something different from what has been known for years in library cards and in supermarkets and bags of potato chips as they say and the answer is no there's nothing about this symbolic that makes anything different or anything special even if we were to just set aside the question and assume that there's nothing can provide all kinds of data so i i want to book i also want a mystery but i want a mystery written by a certain category author i want it within a period of years and i want to have you know i want to have it during a project addressing a particular time frame mean that that's a lot more information that you would get on might be historical fiction within that it might be mysteries related to the french revolution or something like that said there isn't really down that occurs but his point is that on the computer and he says at this point in time that really you can do is keyword searches and a keyword search as we all know having been frustrated by keyword searches don't get you all that often don't narrow things as much as you might want to narrow them so to make two points in response to that i  computers the simple article that we put in the record also shows that so backslidden that's incorrect i also want to address the fact that that's just not required by any of the claims so the claims here require a single multi parameter qualitative data but when you get down to the element which requires a search at the gathering that's the first element claymore you go down to the element that starts with manipulation in claim one of the that you have to match parameters stipulated by an entity conducting a search and represented in the digital labels and here's the critical language according to at least one of the presence of absence of numerical or other emitted by their inventor demonstrated by the uncontested evidence so it's routine and conventional to use a database to form a multi variable search that routine conventional technology can't used to demonstrate that they came up with some sort of cell and in the file history that what he was doing speaking something who's well known by his own past mourning his own statements and applying it to a new context the context of websites on the internet and  my general recollection is that the context in which we have said and the supreme court indicated an alice of taking something from outside the computer world and saying use a computer to do it maybe had the following difference from this case this case is one in which the computer context namely the internet cont the a process for selling out in the world and saying you know put the information on a computer this is saying the internet search systems that are in place and everybody is using  e actually you know established and different from what has gone on in the now and internet world let's do they are the old world by in the new world is there anything to be made of that that i know what i think there is any i think that's what they're trying to do and in invoking d d r and bascomb which are probably the two most relevant cases that there was a way that the internet was set up in those two cases somebody did something different to say change that right and this is like that even if the change comes from something familiar i agree that that's the story they're trying to tell but my opponents try to tell i don't agree that it's correct or even remotely correct i think you can tell from within the past the context of the pattern itself but that's not correct it's inconsistent with the pattern the pattern itself talks about performing a word search within what it called a hybrid digital label in costa second vote there is a direct admission from the inventor that searching for single parameter digital labels was commonplace before his invention and the new it was not something he admitted it i'm sorry that's something that he invented so i don't agree with the sort of factual premise i do think that is the story that they're trying to tell in order to draw the analogy that you just described but number one it's factually incorrect and number two i don't think it works because i don't beef if it were true it would bring this piece into the kind of situation that you had in vascular g r so i think something that's very important to understand is my sense from reading the to one cases it is a very big difference between a situation where someone has created a new algorithm and the under them may not be patentable on its own but they take in that new algorithm they put in the context of a specific process that type of case where that the well how the federal circuit your court has has done but i think that's a very different thing i think that what happened in bascom and d d r the two cases that you are describing and he comes out in the way that you describe it is there was a are in our brief i can read them again i don't think that's correct at all so that this search for the symbolic way will you not to quote from the patent it says an example of two parameter labeling as to leaving a list of people in computer it was so exceptional as to require attorney's fees is there an answer to that my answer to that iran would be to come back to the same thing we didn't have another rule kind of claim it for the jury but what we have now is very clear evidence that he made ofore been used to proposed in digital form for web sites that's thirteen seventy five and then again the simple fact is that websites do not have labels sixteen fifteen years admitted and i can commonplace and nothing to do even in fact if you look at that passage which is eight hundred seventy nine and then also the claims because there are other elements but what it does do is show that when he said at least three times and i think they're more in the briefs there is no prior at all for web site labels it is not huge or for been used posed in digital form for websites the simple fact is that websites do not have labels when he makes those statements to the patent office he knows they're false and that makes this case different i mean that's important the title of this patent is digital labels first it's the core of what he is arguing he invented mr fuller appear and argued that the fundamental thing something about digital labels are special because they're symbolic and that's what makes this patentable it's the core of it and he knows he didn't invent the admitted that in his deposition and he admitted in trial now we got to trial we shouldn't of got to trial we filed a motion nine months before trial before think construction here in making our want to one argument that was not ruled on we were never given permission to file or some reject some reduction motion until two weeks before trial we finally that finally occurred the judge help help the trial into the there are thirteen settlements that's a lot thirteen settlements for an average of sixty five thousand dollars which is less than ten percent of the cost of defense if you look at the i p l it is evidence that we put in the average cost of defending factor that the court could consider but you know it could all be so be true that he thought his best case was against you al and he funded that case i smaller segments that doesn't make it necessarily bad  have looked at the fact that there are all these statements that were made to the patent office that are admitted to be false that's very important when you combine that with all these nuisance value settlements and the argument in response is well we made  the reason here to trial is because our client refused to settle and it can't be held against us that we refused to settle we did everything that we should have done we before long before the case got into discovery before the positions were even still you can take something that may have been individually known in the art that is not the test we don't take individual pieces from and from a claim discount them and then say what's left look at the claim as an is not a novelty case when i hear on one of two one of three that seems to be what mr brown wants to go to the question is not did he invent something new and non obvious the question is at this juncture is what m claims eligible to even get through the front door and be considered for one or two one three we have this course filter of one on one and we believe mr gonzales a satisfied at least one of the mayo tests in that his invention is not abstract but even if we get to the steps step two of the test we believe that he has inventive inventive concepts added to that that take it beyond the realm of abstract and that's   one on one question we have magistrate judge bang who wrote a very well reasoned report i do invite your honor to read judge paine's opinion because i think it's very instructive where this court is today judge payne considered step one in its entirety farm or completely quite frankly the judge just wrapped it in his order where he found claims to be non patent eligible and then on top of that even though he found the claim to be eligible under step one he continued on if the claims are drawn to an abstract idea i still find the claims have enough to get them to a avoid the preemption question which is the overriding concern behind the exclusionary rule in the first place they can solace claims are very specific they do not preach yet some building block of ingenuity like looking for information on the internet to the extent they preempt anything they preempt exactly what the preempt the conversion of that information into something symbolic again very narrow not a building block then to make it even more specific and concrete he says we're going to search based on the label not only information this is not a case where preemption is a concern counsel has an even argued preemption judge strap in his opinion the word preemption doesn't even appear in in the  didn't consider preemption at all which again is the overriding concern of the one on exclusionary rule if the judge if the court has any questions on the  argued my claims are novel my claims are non obvious and as the court recognized the jury in texas agreed there is nothing extraordinary or exceptional about this case to the extent the court even reaches the attorney's fees question the court should completely reject and of firm there was no abuse of discretion on the part of judge just ok thank you your only two points the first is i don't think reasonable minds can differ on the want to one question in this particular case given all the evidence in this case so with the statements that were made in the summer of the invention draw an analogy to a library card with the statement made squarely to the examiner repeatedly that this is taking an idea that is already common in physical form and putting it only into digital human that i don't think there's room for reasonable minds to differ on the want to one question and on the attorney's fees question i just want to come back again it is not the situation where all he said oh my  is new he made statements to the patent office which have been directly contradicted by what he was forced to admit in his deposition in the case i mean that's an that is an unusual situation when you enter admits that he didn't invent the