the plain language of the one thirty one patent law calls for an improved charging station apparatus the thing with tangible components such as a transceiver the data control unit the controller that can receive communications as part of a demand response system and modify the application of charge transfer based on those communications this is not the stuff of abstract ideas it's not math mental processes or fundamental economic practices it's a new charging station improved by combining specific components that enable communication with utilities but whether to ratchet down or even reverse the flow of power through an electric vehicle so it's about sending and receiving communications infringement but these are not arguments that seem a connect doesn't do the abstract concept of set of sending commands over a network they're very nitty gritty factual responses and they confirmed that the claims claim specifically a configuration of components specific components and some non generic components in a particular way to accomplish the end of making good being this electric vehicle charging station intelligence that it didn't have and doing things like demand response and communicating to lease different from all over suppose there were three different ways to do all of them routine conventional  and you chose one of those routine conventional ways and they could easily choose the other and be not infringing but that fact that they were not needing some of the claim elements wouldn't tell you that what's being claimed is on the right side of the line for eligibility well i think this court's cases draw a distinction between between taking generic devices or components and using them for an abstract and claiming the use of the generic court says there is sort of claims are not directed to a new type of bank carte turnstile or database nor do the claims provide a method for processing data that approves existing technological processes rather the claims are directed to the collection storage and recognition of it second statement the claims are not directed to a combined order of specific rules that improve any technological processes but rather invoke computers in the collection to retrieve it third statement they don't argue that its claims that's a controller that has the key the building of reversing the flow of power to the grid that is not a generic component it so you have a twofold inventive concept in the in the one thirty one path and that night sixty seven as well you're adding the ability of the capacity to carry out utilities demand response commands the communication from the grocer remote server and second and this doesn't have anything to do with communication at all but you have your how does that do that i'm sorry how does it do that it proves the court to look very carefully at the distinctions between the claims of the different that and the the that one thirty one patent actually has the capacity to reverse the flow of power not only to turn of the station on and off  adjust the level of power and to reverse the flow of power and there is absolutely no evidence in this record that that was conventional or even existed in the prior art if you look at what the district court pointed to in the specification on  district court said on that point this is a page sixty three of the appendix the district court said that the specifications stated that the combination of making generic networking equipment to a charging device to carry out  false reading of the specification the specification talks about cars having the some cars having the ability technological ability to reverse the flow of power nothing in the specification you look at pages a one fifty two or appendix one fifty two in appendix one fifty four about electric vehicle charging stations having that capacity what it says is this vehicle to grid is not widely available there is a need for more widely available demand response and vehicle to grid to assist with peak load leveling for demand response to be implemented effectively real time communication of a need for power input into the local electricity grid is required and elsewhere at page one fifty four the specification says column six electric vehicles that have the necessary vehicle to create electronics are able to provide power to the local power grid so the most you have in the specification is an acknowledgement that some cars had this capacity not the charging stations to it and certainly not that it was well understood routine and conventional so we think that that alone provides a basis under step two to reverse on that basis but let me come back to the not infringer differences because i think they're very revealing it's step one if look at page ninety seven a nine fifty for example it's nine fifty eight summit can access the accused products do not include a bridge between a local area network and white area and therefore lack of data control damage as required by all the sort of claims of the five seventy one thirty one and seven fifteen patents and fifty seven the accused start charging station either receives communication that is quote part of a demand response system nor does it locally quote modify application of charge transfer as required but all the sort of claims about one thirty one in one sixty seven the nitty gritty factual aspect of these arguments these are our specific kanaka disputes about specific concrete limitations not obviously our position on these same issues as set forth in the complaint pages now you want to want to maybe have a different here so it's more of a mostly of preemption argument but otherwise that argument to prove that we're dealing with concrete and dribble things here i'm just trying to go to the ghost of both if you look at the type of components we're talking about a local area network a wider network of data control unit those aren't those are very specific concrete tangible components and they're saying look we do things in a little different way these are arguments about means not about you know there's no part of the pleadings these patents contain admissions that district court was entitle to rely upon and ruling on a twelve b six motion to dismiss when you look at the claims in light of the admissions in the specifications  themselves you see that the claims are merely taking a conventional charging station using off the shelf devices to then remarkably control that if you turn for example to the appendix one thirty six this is the background of the mantec whether there is an improvement or not is not the test for want to one but when we look at the claims in light of the emissions of the specification we keep coming back to the reality that all of this was  conventional technology in to the extent there was an improvement at all it had to be those were mostly controllable in fact that's what charge point it made it at the twelve the six hearing when you look at page eight zero weight of the joint appendix and you also see this are page eight hundred you'll see that charge point and made it to the extent there was an improvement at all it was this aspect of remotely controlling it and we look at this cords previous decisions in cases like credit exceptions smart systems electric power grid vehicle intelligence all of these cases have said time and time again that remotely controlling something over a network that's an abstract idea become the event of a concept under our step two and that's the problem the charge point faces here when we look at the claims in light of the admissions in the specification which the district court was permitted to do as w is at the v two g if we turn to for example the paper one thirty six the joint appendix when you see down at the bottom of the page you'll see the discussion here of the a call to rid bottom is particularly attractive for electric vehicles so incident made it right here in the background of the invention that demand response vehicle the grid for low lovably i believe if i remember right mr johnson stressed the being used in pilot programs if you look there in line sixty six and sixty seven it says v two g is not widely available it's principally being used in small pilot schemes there is a need for more widely available to man response can be too cheap to assist with people over leveling i think it's says it speaks for itself that when you say more widely available it recognizes that it was already available that it was being used in these pilot scheme so here you have a discussion in the background of the invention acknowledging that demand response is old basic concept you have this discussion that loads leveling has already been  used in the industry and that there is a desire to make it more widely available so here we see in the background of the invention that not only are the transceiver control device in the control or all known generic off the shelf devices but these concepts of demand response and low leveling were also known in the industry so when you take these concepts that you see in the background of the invention of these admissions in the have here claims that are were citing known generic off the shelf devices and concepts that are being used in an expected way and when you look for what else could possibly be the improvement the only to look from look for cases from other other claims in other cases that have been held to be abstract my colleague mentioned the smart systems i think the smart systems is incredibly informative for the for the claims that are before the court today the claims here are remarkably similar to the claims that were in smart systems when you look at the claims and smart systems you see that a processor that was will motor the subway station was checking a bank car in order to control the turnstile in the subway station this process there was controlling access to the subway and th commented that the claims were not reciting an improvement to the bank car they were not conceived that were citing an improvement to the turnstile and they were not reciting an improvement to the that of this and because of that those realise their proposal is that they're not biting do you have a view about whether your position in this case would fall within those within the substance of what is stated in there we don't have a position on that but i think the more important heart point is that they're not binding on the federal courts these are proposed guidance for paddling examiners they're not even final they're open for comment but even at the district court situation the server that said play in these claims would still be collecting information as part of that decision to remotely control whether to term armor off the power whether to turn it up or down would be collecting specifically say that even in a pilot form that is available at the charging station the charging station is set up to reverse the flow that is my understanding because when and what are for there to be vehicle t there would have to be a vehicle and a charger station that when the view well is plugged into this isn't referring to the vehicle to grid locations that are not also chargers know your honor and water for i'd like be there even couldn't be anything like that it's not i just thought i wired to the cat i think it's a good question and i struggle to think of any possible reading when i read this the only logical conclusion you can come to is that when you talk about vehicle to grid you have to be plugging the vehicle back into the grid well how is the vehicle plugged back into the grid presumably it's trudging station so once the vehicle is plugged back into the charging station which is then connected back to the grid as we would see and figure one in three of the patent that's how the electricity would flow from the electric vehicle back to the grid which is what the name is state to grit and  station on the preemption point we all know that preemption is a guide it's not dispositive when we when we look at the situation that's before the court this is a problem of charge points on doing when we look at the pleadings we look at the complaint we see the charge point asserted these patents made representations to the court that they should be given the plain ordinary meaning the full scope of it and in the complaint they made representations that these claims would read on any network charging stations the district court was entitle to rely upon those claims constructions as we've seen in this court's decisions that this report is it's been know not charge the vehicle during periods of high power grid load and the cell power back to the local grid and that it's in the question and answer right after that you seem to say the only thing that we think is novel here is the remote control your honor i think is the district court's opinion alternately responded by speaking generally about the problem that the patents your seek to solve and and i'd like to walk the court through the specific things that are inventive in non conventional in each of the claims but first i want to respond to the point about vehicle to grid because you heard mr white house whitehurst say this speech is that the specification speaks for itself and he said presumably the only way you do vehicle to grid is if you go through a charging station you will not find anything to that effect in the specification it is not true and it's certainly not supported by this record and so i think that the passage in the specification speaks for itself as well and as as the challenger to these patents which i presume valid you have to presume unless there's something in the record that says this is conventional that it's not so that i want to address that point first but speaking now specifically to the claim language and what it is that's inventive and not conventional i'll start with the one thirty one claim one a controller that reverses the flow of power to the grid is not janeiro a controller that can manage charge transfer to electric vehicles is not generic that's clean eight of the one thirty one under the nine sixty seven impact sending communications to electric vehicle charging patients to modify the flow of power to electric vehicle that's not generic under the seven fifteen bad calls for an electrical coupler to make a connection with an electric vehicle that's not generic the five seventy that holds for a current measuring device and a controller configured to operate the control device and to monitor the output that not generic you can't adjust or reverse the power level if you can't measure it so there's no evidence that these elements existed in the prior art they're put together in a new configuration in this in the claims in this case and that's why it's it's absolutely excusing that's why it's not abstract and that's why it's a valid claim now turning to the cases i spoke a bit about smart smart systems in my opening argument i didn't hear any response to the passages where this court's opinion says there's no claim to improved computer technology or to improvement in the technology itself as to the austin casteel electric powered reverse is also in case the court there said the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tool that's at page thirteen fifty four you see a consistent lie in this court's cases claims to the use of generic places for abstract and claims to improvements in the devices themselves this case involves the latter next he referred to remotely controlling something as his being an abstract idea and we respectfully would dispute that you can't unless you're a jet i remotely control something with your mind it's not a mathematical equation it's not a fundamental economic crap to us it's something that requires structural items configured to accomplish that and what about cases of ours and that i think exists that talk about controlling access to do you know the abstract idea of of collecting data from multiple sources and analyzing it using computers for things like that none of the cases actually say that remote control is an abstract idea to look at the there are none of them hold  switch and maybe even a reverse switch of reversal of direction switch that that's not abstract and i'm trying to think well maybe we haven't had that precise thing before but what about other ideas simply because of their familiarity and generality are abstract like sets of steps for granting access at by granting i here i mean something actual physical right it's not you know person at the gate saying please come in it's something physical in the computer that saying now you may have access to the following memory and this server wise if that's if that can be abstract why be well i think you have to look at each particular type of function on its own to determine whether it's really abstract i mean to me the idea of remote control is is not abstract because it doesn't fall into the categories that this court in the supreme court has said or abstract analyzing data is something you do in your mind i suppose potentially allowing access is that type of thing well it can be certainly open to the extent that you're looking at fundamental economic practices if that's a category of what's abstract this is corey said then over time just just controlling access to a computer resource read with a bunch of steps the last one of which is you know a key on locks a door computer or call it if it's framed in that sort of of like that level of generality that maybe to get where you are saying you know what we're claiming the key or we're claiming a device that enables an opening of art that everything about the mechanism for turning on off or reversing the flow in the charging device was off the shelf stuff it may not be the only off the shelf stuff you might be able to do it differently but you know people have been have been remotely turning on and off the heat in their home for a long time there's nothing in this record  adjusting the level of power of the charging station or reversing the flow of power was off the shelf the specification shows the opposite him to the extent you care to look beyond it and look at the haas and baxter declarations they show the opposite as well i mean let me close by saying i think the district court effectively by focusing on concepts like abstract idea of sending requests receiving command effectively wrote the structural imitations out of the claim and we think that that stretches alice to the breaking point and i've yet to see the case that claims an apparatus a device configured in a specific way with at least some new non conventional components struck down by this court or the supreme court or one of one