does your position on this agreement rest on the fact that i'm looking at section two but one at the end of that that the third parties here under section b are really the same as  what about you know like twenty seventeen i'll see if i think that they are necessary in order for you proceed because if i don't believe that substantially all rights were transferred what do we do about that do we order i mean there's a federal ninety eight they came up with a new way to redesign the networks in large companies where individual users would move to various they're called clients client stations you might have different users  started i thought it did i thought it did on page eight thirty eight which of the appendix where it said quote providing a user specific text talk interface that includes establishing display regions associated with application programs for which the authorized in response to the user selections i'm going to start laughing because i have to probably take three breaths to get all of this out and i'm not certain how providing a user specific desktop interface could possibly be an abstract idea this is a friendly question if you're not a point this is an old review so i don't want to preclude this record but you know that doesn't sound like i have started to be at all and we did say there are three part of the issues we have heard so i'm trying on oral argument to focus on what the invention is and what was claim and not pick apart what's just recorded but we did lay those things out and in our brief if i might in preparing for this argument i reviewed all of the federal circuit opinions since the almost curious who works there was a holding that a claim was drawn from the structure idea there are thirty four of them and twenty three of them deal with the selecting analyzing reporting and displaying information which of it doesn't apply here eight of them are cases where where the inventor simply put on a computer what had been done by human beings that doesn't apply here and there were three auto you didn't fall into those baskets dealing with the rules of card games and one which talked about general idea so when you're a company like i b m and you come up with application so it would be activated from a central location in the network these that's the way it was described and the paths in what sense is the either the network or any of the client target the target server but if i move this server is doing what servers do the computer is doing what server sewer service to your various and the network is doing what networks do the only difference is the programming is the functioning of the computer for example like and finish where the particular data platform i can't remember the specific details i do remember there was there are sources in the specification that reduced memory allocation the following language including a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the application program with a target on demand server what the patent says if that is not how the the nature of its invention to be and you can correct me or you can continue to say that you're just not prepared to answer whatever is fine but i didn't think this was about file packets or patent it was claiming novelty in file packets i thought it was about what file packets allow the network to do how the network can operate more efficiently by virtue of the small packets how the up locations get updated centrally because of the middle loads users to access the applications from any client as a result of all this so it's not the start with an application on a server in the network but the idea was to provide mobility to users a user now logs into a terminal wherever it is and then the server sends a desktop and x not interface unique down to the to the client for execution those answers are all in the claims that was not the way the prior art at it and the advantages were defined and the force of search pattern as providing mobility point i thought you said in that you conceded on one call concession in grey that it was conventional for client work shape stations to be connected to servers over a network installing distributing receiving and providing programs over a necker network represented standard computer functionality i'm quoting from your great yes your honor but in nineteen ninety nine all those servers were connected to users it didn't work out this way it was not a situation then whether you had to use or go to any terminal and get an interface where his authorized applications were displayed people forget that that's where you have to look at the re for the court to grant this motion so at the very least i would request supplemental briefing on this frap forty three motion that they are making today but i also in the alternative making the argument that we should just is there a basis for our just the motion wholesale as opposed absolutely we actually think that there is at least a prudential standing defect here but more importantly there is a constitutional standing the fact that prudential standing is only an independent reason to conclude that you know the court should dismiss this appeal and the constitutional point is that you know law lost its constitutional standing when on march thirteenth twenty eighteen i b m regained the reversionary right to license it's a side i think that it's clear on the face of the contract that their parties indemnities prefer not to the same thing their parties under two point one is very broad and can include any party that's involved in any activities that's relating to the defense in for understand in other words at the district court when very narrow helpful to your case it's all i mean i don't understand how it abstract idea could begin with providing a user specific desktop and under the courts of profit and apple vs amaranth trading tax these kinds of interfaces which by the way that's yeah because if you go into the minutia and you don't actually look at an abstract idea it much makes it much easier to survive step two right because we've held that the thing that's not conventional well understood or routine can't be the abstract idea that can't be what saves your claim so if the district court basically articulates all the elements of the claim as the abstract idea you've eliminated step two of alice so i don't think going to this level of musha first i don't think this article it's not fact idea for you to prevail you've got to tell me an actual abstract idea because there's we do not think of the district or is wrong in formulating a more specific version of the abstract  idea on the issue of advantages regarding network architecture we believe that all these technological advantages have been imported from the spec and what the court should really do is look at the cleanings to find out that these are not appellants actually concede at this installing distributing maintaining downloading these are all broad categories and we believe that on the routine and on the pleadings and you're saying they have the burden of proving their patent claims are eligible and if they didn't do that they've wasted and you should know they did not submit the evidence or any kind of factual dispute regarding what was well think you're on to my please the court of i'll be happy to address your questions about the two one three specifically with regard to the second configure to initiate your honour's i think it's important to understand that the two nine three days describing technology that existed before the segment initiated to configure is a portion of the file packet a file packet as my friend here acknowledged is just the way that network computers talk a way of improving the operation of a networked arrangement it is your honor but the the mechanism for doing that this file packet is simply a standard mechanism for a network server to communicate with a client and the segment configured to specifically identified in the specification as including an important data file and a call to an import program these are standard mechanisms that are can be programmed in java that were known at the time and so what was happening here was simply a rearranging of the responsibilities within the network i that the point it's a file packet may have been a conventional thing but this ific way in which these things are arranged and how they function provides improved functionality of the whole network arrangement well i don't respect it i don't believe that it improves it it grants the technological benefit there is some business benefit to be clean and this is what this record acknowledge that the system administrator doesn't need to visit with each and every user to say how would you like this configured and by the way i'm going to impose these restrictions on the system but the way the system is working is the same as it's always worked the server is sending file packets to the client the client is sending information back that's all that's happening the fact that the file packet includes a segment configured to initiate registration all that's saying is there some splash page that's going to appear on the server for the user to log in but that's not changing the functionality of the network in a technological way that's only improving the business efficiency in the sense that maybe there's less manpower that's required but that's why this particular pattern is very clearly directed to an abstract idea that's not saved by any sort of technological advance in the specifically claims of quite broad right i mean the claims are incredibly broad ground all right and what was the other p the prior art the computer network is being used as a tool here and the specific elements of the claims are all very general functions that are within the purview of any generic computer hardware you've got a mechanism for installing an application program obtaining configurable preferences and executing an application the pattern itself but again you're you're parsing the claim and i'm talking about individual or is right well your honor again i would respectfully disagree in part because when you look at the claim claim one in particular just refers to an application application launcher program there is in claim to the additional element of a configuration management program these are the two kind of hooks i think that your lock is relying on if you look at the specification the specification makes clear that the application launcher program can be anything from a u r l all the way to the application itself entire application similarly the configuration management program can be almost anything it can be as little as a configuration screen and i have specification sites for these facts if you're interested in your own it can be a  configuration screen or can be an entire module that gets passed down so i think the very breath of options available to satisfy this claim established that there is nothing here that's a technological advance it's basically saying you can customize this type of operation between a network and in the a network server network client by doing it at the server side you can do it at the client side you do however you want and all it's doing is using the network a tool to effect that that customization process so that the users what the user sees and what the administrator network administrator sends to the user are are what they should be application programs in the network environment from a central on demand server or case him allowing for user preferences the next sentence says this provides for reduced cost and increase uniformity in managing software in a network environment i deliver in configured applications when demanded by the user it further provides an essentially hardware transparent ability for an how are these improvements to the network your honor again these are improvements to the way that the network is managed by the people by the network administrator the network administrators interaction with the end user doesn't that you've changed the way the network delivers information to make it more efficient for the end user but it was a change to the network wasn't it i  don't believe so you're going to change the human beings it's a change the way that the human beings are interacting now certainly around the really because i think this is i understood this to be a claim to a network in the software on a network not a claim to human interaction you're right your honor i apologize if i mischaracterized the claim the point is that there is no change to the way that the network is functioning there is only a change to the way the information is being exchanged the the network works better and provides the ability to have this improved functionality because of the way it's configured around well i deem imprint proof functionality your honor is is really related to the ability of the network administrator to administer the network not to how the network itself is presenting applications to the user because the network administrator could individually set up each user's computer but this this  pattern is directed to automation of that process but what i'm getting at is it's because all of these improvements are because of the way the network is configured well rick your honor i'm not sure because the claim  so broadly drafted and includes these terms which can basically encompass any aspect of the of the program well if it's not your this is twelve the strength of the pleading stage if you're not sure because claim construction hasn't the question is really clear my question is you're standing here telling us your not sure whether this claim covers improvements to the network and i think inherent in your answer is your understanding that if that's the case we're probably talking about eligible subject matter and you're not sure because you're not positive what the claims go that's what i understood your honor i may have misspoken it if that was your impression what i was trying to say is that the claim is drafted extremely broadly and according to specification for example the application launcher program which is a key element to claim one of this patent and is in specification is described it can be basically anything it can be a u r l or it can be the entire application that none of that is is beyond a generic or conventional mechanism that already existed the specification explicitly explains that this environment this network management environment they call it that to believe system that c m e it allowed for the network and server communication this is affecting network and server communication either in the form of the entire application a subset of the application a subset of the configuration module that the claim scope is relevant only in the sense that it illustrates that this is an abstract idea that does not provide a technological advance