i have knowledge of her credentials and i'm satisfied that you possess the necessary qualifications i know a lot about gabby she's been my mom her for the last year she also was a graduate of of my alma mater went to case western reserve law school and graduated at the top of her class there but unlike me she was much more industrious and she also got a master's in biochemistry at the same time she clerked before me for letter and we have appealed this decision because we believe there are at least for independent reasons that there is no basis for the past the board's validation of our claims and those reasons are that the claims pose no reason let me interrupt to first so we intend to pursue that position and seek on my purview or supreme court review and i'm happy to make i would point out to your honor that we believe there at least a couple of reasons that were not addressed by the panel decision a few weeks ago that warrant a different outcome and i'm happy to discuss those with the court here this morning but turning back to our our base the substantive basis for the claims not being invalid the first reason that the claims of the five and two that are not in doubt is that concept if you look at the petition they originally filed they indicated the abstract concept was the concept of advancing the funds again future retirement payments and yet if you look carefully carefully there petitions they don't even take the position that anyone had ever vance once again to future retirement in their petition to said what they really say is that the concept of a venti wants has been practiced and the problem with that your honor is that in the bible a decision made by the board retirement as opposed to advancing funds in anticipation of future income you wouldn't dispute that proposition is commonly found in year i would not just rise and i would not dispute that prior to the time that my client conceived of the invention that blows forms were bands based upon future income so your argument is that when you specify that the future income will be retirement benefits then now you've crossed the line from abstract to non abstract is that is that your position as i what i'm arguing just pricing is that subject matter eligibility do you take them to language i can see that there is language about something being well known in terms of practice in the past and there's language about cramps and then the supreme court cases but but those aren't believe you would have to show that's known before but in the context of advertiser or abstract business concepts or fingers are don't involve natural laws i do believe that if someone's going to take the position that a business practice has been around for centuries or decades they should have to show evidence to prove that the reason that's important is that it was frustrating for take why is that one month after the board issued final decision in our case gentle grounds that there was no substantive evidence to support the idea that what those party were the exam of the ten was an abstract concept was actually abstract and the other reason we may have a difference here is that the board's final decision is depended upon and expressed with the states that this abstract concept is something long prevalent in our economic system and there's no evidence to support that quintile ever was equipped with one count we just read the claims violating a monetary benefit this is all it may be very clever and maybe very useful in the commercial sense that they are still have strict ideas is this shuffling doctrine from which the preemption i dear runs well just laurie our position is that you start with what's very claim with the abstract concept and there are numerous limitations on what they say is the abstract concept they didn't even address some of those limitations before they didn't take the position that some of the limitations actually the only thing they took the position was abstract below was the concept of advancing funds based on future targets they didn't take the position that at least modestly preemptive not as preemptive as advancing funds based on any future income but nonetheless a pretty large portion of future income would be represented by retirement that's it i suppose but if that's within the broader abstract idea isn't that what at alice said you couldn't do by way of getting around the abstract well just prices narrowing the target payments to school security might be a field funds and their future partner payments they have to absolutely if the the beneficiary revoke the ability of the source of funds to come after those return payments they have to go get them another at another  source and because of the involvement of direct deposit in human nature and people not changing where they are having funds are positive it's all part of a total solution none of these limitations when they're not added together is not just even contend that they don't even address some of the limitations on the claim and something limitations that don't rest just right and for example not that not the social security limitation it's limitations that we know are significant because they take the position that they don't infringe by it and just laurie and i would take the position that in fact if you look at bill c bill specifically have a reference to the fact that they refer to state street and they said states or even all the machine points not process points so even in that case the supreme court was recognizing that machine playing should be treated differently and there simply are no machine claims under the porch present or we wouldn't even that's really here about we'll see if the claims that issue that case originally satisf a finding that a claim a need for us function format is palatable in that one one mention alice now there is no discussion in alice the supreme court case itself that deals with in such a function but if you look at the underlying claims of the seven twenty eight twenty patent at issue there are about five depending claims that have a means plus function limitation in there so under that ruling itself the court the supreme court  cases there are these two instances where this court has expressly stated and ruled that simply because a claim is a need plus function format that doesn't mean i'm satisfied when i won and so if you look  to calculate and it wasn't tied to the specific use of analyzing cast and for a claim six was more narrow and it dealt with a specific tangible result but in mean function format it had the same process steps but the only distinction was that it said this is a system and it included mean plus function limitations and the court said that there was no reason to distinguish an abstract method claimed in process format versus a means but function that really recite the same process steps again in re my ear the court came to the same  if you go back to another case in ray freeman and this goes back to deal with freeman walter belive that i'm not suggesting that the court provide that but in freeman is a really good discussion about means but function and in that case in that case specifically the court found that the the system claimed satisfied the one on one but it was basically because the method itself was specific and tangible enough not preempting that i function format if the underlying method did not satisfy on a lot and so this proposition that means must function by itself can satisfy had knowledge law as well and i think when you look at the underlying pattern here at issue it's consistent with some of the newer cases that deal with system claims for example now it's just a claim would only i mean are factors like wouldn't say the board blew past those faster on it and i think from what we've heard today and what we've heard that the underlying case of the board we didn't hear anything from the patsies that indicated that there were facts that needed to be determined or found to say that even the narrower claims were specific enough to get out of the current case but under alice in the square it's more recent press than it is if you look at  countenanced the the decision by district courts to deal with these patents under twelve the six months in the court knows that under certain circumstances there's no fact finding and there's no expert opinion and more extraction technologies technology is a more recent case from this court i think within the past month or two the court specifically addressed this there's no there isn't always a need to have an expert opinion or fact and to judge ri payments is that type of distinction we agree it makes the subsequent claims are dependent things in our what it is not the type of distinction that is the basis of a package of bills and then if anything that type station and that type of subject matter those are the very heart of what alice bilski and other cases have said are the types of inventions if you will that don't need patent protection  source a number of other cases for properties for example court properties dealt with managing real estate portfolios and all these cases the underlying theme is that when there is a question or a process or even a system i think that's the way the case was trending there is certainly the the argument the judge may or may in the number of this can turn says that when you look at the supreme court precedent when you look at this court's precedent a perhaps better test and then what the supreme court has offered currently is what he calls a technological test and you see some of that in the court's precedents and so when you get to the inventions that deal with economic activity when you deal with human behavior for example as in one nine hundred ninety four case from this court in re schrader and that dealt with the method of auctioning and it's no different than the more recent case of o ip technologies  versus amazon which was the seeing type of invention that someone was trying trying to patent and it simply and method of conducting an activity and those types of nexus i think are no longer the types of inventions that w it sorry i lost my train of thought but this is another trend i think that you see in some of the case law which is that they have admitted there's no per se decision on this but when you get to perhaps a business type method inventions that can't be done with the human mind that might take it outside of this class of exceptions that the courts have talked about and you see types of inventions that they involve so much complexity that people by to help us with our job i would like to but i would say that i would love to come back with the proper papers and help these more this is not that case because there is no doubt that the underlying process that's claimed to be or can he be done simply by people working together and on top of that using a basic computer without any specific fancy out there is a value of m and m point things can be done much more quickly much more efficiently you can keep track of movements and signs why why doesn't why isn't there a point at which they didn't use the computer makes it so much of a better map and that it would fall outside that think there is and the problem with a lot of these patents is that the claims the way they're drafted don't require those limitations and you saw some of that discussion in the alice case and i'm thinking back to the argument at the supreme court and there it was mentioned that well this invention covers this extraordinary complex system of exchanging resettlements among parties among different nations thousands and thousands millions time today the argument was made that what it's actually covering is so complex because there are so many players and so many numbers involved that you needed to puter to do it the problem as this court noted in its opinion was that the claims weren't tailor any business methods that that would be packed knowledgeable we certainly leave that open issue that it's hard to come up with a great example that does not involve some technology at the supreme court argument for example recently we don't take that position in the brief but i will admit that it's somewhat hard and i don't have one today i have been trying to think of one a good bit to think of a good example of a business method that doesn't involve some technology that would meet the supreme court's test and that might just be a failure of of our imagination of my imagination at this point but what do you make of the fact that when the congress passed a i a they set up this whole business method review but they didn't just say oh  this you know we're not in that territory and there may be a case that will come up with a faster a lot more interest a lot more interesting at least from my perspective where the line is closer to being met when there is you know technology people without any technological and implementation then we define the term in a way that's perhaps narrow enough to say that all of those kinds of claims go way but i mean let me give you an example that my actually my last quarter came up with this struck me as being maybe astride the lines and how you define this is that but google's method of linking searches to advertise could call that i suppose significant effect on the market and the internet i think would depend on how it was claimed but looking at it in some ways looking at this point for example that the d d r opinion or even alice there seems to be it could be a substantial technological portion of that that maybe the idea might be abstract and linking advertisers to search results might be an abstract idea that there might be enough more in the claim specially where it's a problem dad would not necessarily arise in the same way that it arises on the internet as it might have earlier and make an analogy in these cases at some level of generality that this is just like something else that we've already known about almost always and it seems that that much of what the supreme court wins us to do here is reason by analogy and unlike a lot of time the rules are a lot clearer and the history of patent law seems to have depended on more clear rules i think that the supreme court is making this more of a an open test at esme it seems more that like typing i'm had a lot of damage most experience it envision anough more in the claims where there is nothing that's conventional in routine and where the a d f may not be so abstract particularly where it is  it was not sufficiently connected to abstract ideas as a connecting advertisers to to search results many may not have been search results before looking at in the white pages and connecting looking at ads in the white pages and putting in an ad next to the thing that you're looking at the way he's right that's the analogy one could make sure and i think that case case i think that these are really fast by fast cases that depend on the play and so it almost anything if as a little rebuttals on thank you we do have clear rules here the clear rule is we're not just saying that if you add if you include me in the slot limitations you satisfy the machine or transformation it would satisfy one twelve six because i would assume that means for calculating and describing in the specifications the computer would be would be sufficient for one to offset what are you saying that would be enough of a tw bancorp or the patent office haven't really addressed a lot of the deficiencies in the final decision that we raised we don't believe that it's proper for that decision to be written by the federal circuit to correct those deficiencies  do their job but introduce evidence that sin is required when required and make the proper arguments and apply them all directly and not inconsistently as they've done with respect to my clients the decision should not be affirmed that should be reverse knowing the court had already a corpse with a long standing present not established that one of the one was a defense to pat infringement we've gone back and looked at noted that no decision by the federal circuit or the supreme court had invalidated an issue pat on the