place this morning is number one hundred and thirty two in race night or mr ready man plays the court roger williams here today on behalf of we asked the court to reverse the panel's one hundred and one rejection of the independent claims in this case in the st round i want to talk about is how the the board overlooked the explicit express discussion in the specification of the technical problems solved by the claimed invention what is the invention invention is given the context of a link or ian dataset making links was all ready right wasn't the invention was not creating liks invention is is generating the invention is not generating links it's more than that it's generating specific types of edges within the context of these civic type of data structure links and edges of the same  yes corrector are links and edges are the same thing so the as the invention use new data to do this invention creates new data in the context of this database and absolutely the invention creates new data when the what the data that's coming in the data that's coming in is coming in and we have a certain type of data that's coming in it comes in with with i'm just trying to understand what the invention is there is if using a new dataset or is it creating new links based on the same data because it's creating a new dataset based on data that is in one of the edges or one of the links based on they do that is a preexisting a combination of a preexisting edge type or data that is collected in one of the nodes it's creating new data elements of the data set using some combination of those the what we have and when we start that what we start with as we start with a note that has information about an observation and a place and that comes to us the the determination that those two places are within the same or within a distance from each other that's not in that's not in the dataset until we define the edge type calculated but her vocal that was not done before calculating them ok in this particular example calculating the location was done before but the look but it wasn't and the location was in the database  original database but it's not in it into but the the relation between those two nodes isn't in it until some until the program goes in there and compares the two locations realizes that they meet calculate the distance between them in the abstract once you have to locations at the ports it's possible to calculate the distance between them that's that's not an issue so what was new about what improvement here is changing the database to add that fact that relationship that did not exist before was how exactly changing the database and you said changing that they did but what did you mean by that it's embodied in links and woods and and you we have we have at least two instances of that we have a person a and a person b both of them have the same kind of data it comes in and in the original data set comes to us as a data file of some kind right of a file of data that's usable by computer right and and then how do you define the link the new  is we have an example of that in the specification it's a it's basically code it's a it's a program that does that so the computer has a program that receives the data set namely where the two individuals are located and those are all result of that the computer generates the link yes the program to someone someone in the example in the specification someone has written a sip snippet of code and what it does is it goes out there and it creates an it defines a new type of link and it creates it up with that new code that's not part of it the code is part of the claim because we talk and that's link derivation in the context of this claim or defining in terms of a node value that's inducing links in the context of this but it doesn't it doesn't believe tell you how to do it other than the use of compute actually we have i did i respectfully disagree your honor we we it tells you that you you start with this link oriented data sets of that's a specific type of data set and a very specific type of data structure with with with type edge and type nodes and and it says you can add new links and here's different ways to add new links and it gives you a priest precise way to what's the precise why there's it's either the computer facilitate the invention what does the computer do the computer does almost everything you have the if you look at claim one hundred and fourteen to begin with you have on memory on a computer and and that the graphics platform software has the software capabilities to to run searches to find paths on this link or in a data set computer has to do that and then the defining of the edge type defining the new edge type that's a you know that's something that's done you're telling the computer how to define the new edge type and then going out and identifying the the different types of edges or nodes that satisfy the conditions to create new links that's all done by the computer so the nutshell the computer is given the information it's given the formula and it generates the links yes it's given a yes for example or the drive length that's given a in the example in the specification it's given a boolean expression create you know derive a link by looking for all the different edges that satisfy these conditions and every time you have a path that satisfies these conditions then you derive a link between the end points of that path same thing for an induced for induced link what you do is the software  coordinates match up to another one and then you create a link between them that's all done by the software or pursue a petition for rehearing which is what i hope we have here is a decision under one o one which is being appealed correct not whatever steps may have been taken in order to get to we claims were not eligible for pat correct and i want to know that either way this will go back to prosecution because there are deep and it claims pending in the board left it to the examiner to determine whether they be cited sufficiently more to  with no additional information and see your honour's name plaque behind the bench as well as your honor judge sauls name plaque i could infer that you are both on the piano that will be deciding this case and that is covered by this claim the this is a method within the scope of section one a one not whether the other sections of the statute apply that's what the board hilda's it not the board if i understand your correctly the board help that the claims were not eligible under section one a one of a patent act because they did not because they re cited an abstract concept and the additional elements did not amount to something more such that there was eligibility under this court and the supreme court's precedent and then here you are telling us and your friend that the reason that it's an abstract concept is because it does is that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and specifically directed to a mental process which this court has repeatedly how this that's what the court hello i'm trying to understand where the boundary line is how is it that we see so many methods practical methods that are performed in the real world and yet the office shows us that they don't come within the scope of what the  judge you mean your question and i think this court's opinion in s a p v investec is a good example where this court explained that no matter how new your abstract idea is that alone does not confer eligibility you have to look to  additional elements which here are undisputedly generic computer elements we know that because that's what the specification tells us if you look at paragraph forty five dollars it says the software is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art and if we look at paragraph  seventy and this goes to your honor judge sauls question the invention quote is not limited to any particular computer architecture or network can be any system so because of that the only thing that is being argue were too broad is that the claims were directed to ineligible subject matter and specifically it's the subject matter of inferring a connection between two data points and i mean if i am watching a basketball game on television and i see two people wearing the same color jersey i could infer that they are on the same team it's in how legible because it's performed by computer the supreme court is that if you just have a claim that essentially says do it on a computer and the et is otherwise ineligible subject matter here the mental process of drawing an inference that's not enough and as judge  brought up earlier today these claims don't tell you how you do something differently or a new way on a computer they just say do it on a computer or computer draw an inference using this admittedly known software in this admittedly known technical environment and the claims are broad enough to cover even these very simple examples that even my friend on the other side was bringing up this morning of two people having some connection like having shared a phone call and drawing a connection between them that's new data it's not a new structure for storing data like we had and fish it's not a new system for interacting with the data like the tap spreadsheet in the data engine case it's simply an inference and you could call that a node or a lank or data but that's all it has and has seems to work is that nothing is done to the computer in this case rat in this invention rather the computer is used in its normal way to implement the abstract idea that's exactly correct using some language from this court the computer is being used as a tool there's no claimed improvement to the tool itself thank you so you will if you reverse the board if you reverse the board and it goes back to the office or allowance of if you don't reverse the board and it goes back for examination of the dependent claims now you are not bound by what the the the board did in terms of how the board defined the abstract idea but if it goes back an examination my clients are and the examiner is and the what the board did was not a correct definition it was not a supportable definition of the abstract idea and so if you're going to send it back for further examination one thing we ask that you do is actually tell us as a matter of law what the abstract is that this claim is directed to so that so that for the prosecution can proceed or you think the idea is i think the idea is is is is improving and a link oriented data set by adding new types of edges that are not already in there that are not inherently  because when you add though and when that is a technological improvement because as when you add those new types of edges it reduces search costs it means that that when the analyst wants to direct a search of this graph database you can search for you can do you can convert complex searches into simple searches that reduces search costs and that's a technological improvement what  it's organized as nodes and edges so so you can search for paths i mean the way you let's not i don't know that that's in the record your honor certainly not searching the database searching not sort of not certainly not adding new links to a  the when my friend stands up and says that the steps of the claim can be performed entirely in the mind i think what that does is that's raising a claim construction question because i don't think that any of these claims can be performed entirely in the mind it may be that some simplified hypothetical can be performed in the mind but not these claims the  claims talk about manipulation every every one of you to buy new hampshire figure out in your hip ready or at the distances between two geographic locations that's possible but that's not what's in the claim what you cannot figure out in their head as the climb cover figuring out the relationship between these two of us is on maple street eventually that's that is that is a calculation that might be done but that's not what the claim was directed to was that one of the right to claim was directed to defining a new type of an inch in a graph database and adding that new type of edge into the database would mean newt when the data comes in it comes in with was pacific categories of types like like in our in the example that you started asking about nineteen i'd be that the types of relationships are person place and time what's not  there is is is is within one mile of each other that's a new relationship it's not in the data as it comes into us after we create that link then there is a new edge and then that can be searched that then you can run new searches on the database then at that point that's not an abstraction that's a real data element that if they actually form it to the database that can be searched on and generate results but the record is also recognized including the cyber source case that manipulate claims directed to manipulation of data structures or not mental step or not abstract elements the claim construction argument is that the my friend here is saying that everything can be done in the mind and and as a claim construction question that's just not so  and fourteen it's it's everything you know it's express how that everything is done by a processor working on trees in memory and claim seventy defining and edge type and generating by computational process a edge type an abstraction edge type edge so those claim elements mean that this cannot be performed in your mind and part of the question i think is that when we're talking about the reason words defining an edge type in these claims that's not the kind of defining that you and i do when we're talking in a computer science world when you define a type of variable or form a type of element what you're doing is you're defining your specifying exactly how it's going to be hey in the context of a programmer database you're describing exactly how he can how the computer is going to manipulate it so defining the defining verb in these claims is one of the things that contributes to one of things that supports the idea that the claims cannot be performed in the mind