technology as i've requested five minutes for adult learners you seem like you want to get to the heart of the issue and i'd like to do the same what's inventive about my client's patents why should we be allowed to go patent why should be allowed to go forward but i think this case turns on a central issue which is whether the use of a two way firewall in the claims of this patent is inventive sufficient to render the claims pat knowledge about i submit that the court did not reach obviously that's why we're here for the following reasons it wasn't your honour's when you look at the opinion what the court concluded was that that you a firewall in the patent was a conventional piece of software and here's where the the real discussing the functional nature of the claims except that's not entirely accurate and for the core reason that the tools that are being used the pieces of computer equipment are programs that are being used to carry out those functions are different than what you would normally in ordinarily find being used to carry out those particular functions so i agree with you that there are certainly plenty of functional limitations in the claim to do then she may fire was enough to to claim the tools you have to show how to work three items first of all where is it located and that is actually key to the the whole inventive part of this claim it's located usually at the perimeter of the network and it's not located usually at the user interface and that's another part of that point talk about server which includes a two way farwell program i actually think that you are factually wrong when you tell the claim doesn't say where the two way firewall i apologize your honor i you are correct it does say it's on the server that that's absolutely right my apologies your honor it's not simply in the specification that is absolutely accurate i've got that incorrect so that's in fact correct it is actually saying that it is on the server and then when you look back at figure want it shows that the server is not where the user well your honor if you read through it it talks about this being an hour and it talks about that there that within the network there is a patient access computer device and then separately it talks about there being a server and  inherently in pa is that these are two different parts of the system in two different locations where we work here well as i understand how computers work your honor in theory all of these things i suppose if it were one was  the the functions are are are explained or you have rules within the functions and one of them is the location of the car that turned out not to be correct wh said that it's located in a different area than the normal it's in the server i asked you all distinguishes that so i do believe that it shows that they are in different parts of the system but even if they are following up on believe both of my colleagues points even if there are even if it's located in the server kind nowhere i don't find that words the speaking should i find no evidence that this fire wall is located in the middle where if you look at it in the server but that's not good enough for you to prevail you went much further in your briefs and said that the location is very precise i don't see that in in the middle where and that is where the fire wall where the middleware concept is coming from where i'm talking about the location difference is where the type of software that is normally performing the functions that are being because your honor we were asked to provide a claim interpretation that claim interpretation would have been supported by expert testimony had we have been allowed to have a hearing and i'm bound by what we presented to the court in good faith and i had presented an offer of proof and asons that if i had been clues that one of ordinary skill in the arts would look at and that we did look at such as where the fact that the firewall was located on a server that there is a distinct place it within the system called the user interface and then when you look at the prosecution history for example you see that no fakey is operating in the user interface and that the u s p t o held that the client's invention was allowable because a two way firewall was not therefore appeal to is successful because if you look soley at the specification at the the at aim which i misspoke earlier which shows that there is a distinction between the client and of the system and the server which is where the firewall is residing if you're looking at what this firewall is normally what firewalls normally do which we commonly i don't think there is any dispute about what the firewall is normally do which even in the opinion the report does state that they that they normally block wholesale access for users programs and software and data into the system and again close out access by those same types of things out of the system that's not what's happening here if the  firewall here is doing aberrated and a much more granular level so i think we can for the moment and i'm i'm happy for the sake of argument to not talk about where it's located at this moment but she's deep into focus on the functions of love the functions that are being performed by this this fire off are different than what you would normally see a firewall performing and that alone is over and how so because again this is this particular software is making determinations about to an authorized user so you already have the password system in the claim and it's letting in an authorized user and then it's determining what type of authorized user can see what type of information and then particularly when you look down for example to claim fourteen it says that that another user want to call on the super user and make changes in what information that the patient user can see and these are not functions that you would normally find a to  alternative that it may not be a conventional to a firewall but we are willing to say that even if it is the conventional to a firearm under cases such as fast as you can have and there are others you can have  completely conventional components you can have a claim as they did in bascom where every single one of the components there was conventional but it was operating in a non conventional manner and that's the heart of what our argument is that the two a firearms here is not ar and then you go through it explains that a firewall prevents certain types of users from getting into all of the systems and it prevents certain types of information malware from and whatnot from getting into a firewall also has a known meaning which again at a network level prevent certain stuff honor again we have stated from the very beginning in our brief that this could be used as a conventional to a firearm i'd i am not prepared nor have i been authorized to concede that that if we were another crisis just stated that appendix nineteen he says preservation can see that at the hearing of the motions dismiss that the two way firewall is a conventional computer program that was available at the time of the patent application your honor again we have never disagreed that a conventional to a fire i'm not saying it's the only one that would be in compas by the flames but a conventional to a fire well could be used in this claim for and i'm in and on is being used i should say in this claim and  between the two other than the stated functions that have been offered by t and when you look at the specification there is no guidance as to how that how those functions that  are being performed that are identified in the claim constructions provided by the factory how are those functions being performed and how are the differences between the two manifest in the technology our the implemented what is the way in which the particular programming is done what's the way in which the software is designed to accomplish that result what we really have is we have merely playing a functional  result you have a claim as directors of the resulting system and so what we're left with when we focus on the entire middleware issue is that not only are there no mentions of the benefits of locating the on any given spot on the server whether middleware or what sometimes being called the unit or the user interface level there's no discussion at all of either of those two locations within the pattern and if you talk about how it might compare  disclosure there were flow charts and then they blame the exploitation of specific technical features of the components to produce a specific technical result over the prior art here we don't have the exploitation of specific specific technical features and some of them already been disclosed and we certainly don't have an explanation as to how they are an improvement over the prior art so from the perspective of the apple e's there is not a close call in saying that this case distinguishable from bascom taking the arguments directly specifically to the mill where i think the lower court had the better of the argument in has nothing to invent a concept or alternatively it does have a structure but that definition is so well known that it need not be described in a patent to be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art and that insists the such the structured set is simply a conventional structure that functions in a well known manner so in either of those two options were left in a position where we're unable to look to the location of the two a fire on the middle where as being the type of  transformative piece of the of an event a concept that would move it into a move it out of the abstract idea and also point to page thirty two and thirty three the blue brief where as evasion further his argument about has a small disclosure regarding security events on appendix a to the page number column thirteen lines forty five through fifty five have two concepts about security mentioned one is that the server itself is secure and that's a well known item from the prior art in the second as it says that the security that would be gained by this convention would be that you wouldn't carry around medical records on your person and that the security provided was the access over the internet in a secure manner so even within the patent cell phone we look outside of the planes to try to find the teachings in regard to charity  they're not focused on the type of security that we're hearing about in the briefing further to that extent the specification you know is talking about the benefits we're not of having security it's clearly not talking about the location it was also reference to the market men and whether or not that process would have changed  result we look at the process in which the lower court decided to accept the claim constructionist provided and for while we believe the construction would be consistent with one that would be given by a full process  construction was picked by preservation i don't think there could be any legitimate argument as to the content of that construction and we believe that the construction was adopted in full by the lower court and assessed on its merits  and the process that was used below which would include which included a full liberation not just of the individual elements but the combined elements of the invention the order nomination we also think was fully proper so in light of the record below being so so robust on that analysis we believe that the criticisms from