good morning your honor so may please the court the two seven one patent has been through two reexamination proceedings when the patent office allowed claims to issue from those reexamination proceedings it found that the inventive concept found in the two seven one patent was the provision of options these options are provided to specific users based on an evaluation of multiple users data and you said in benefit that they were or even if something's not disclosed in the prior art doesn't mean that it's not necessarily well understood routine or conventional so when the district court record there are two different kinds something is in or not described in prior art may yet not make it may ultimately be immaterial to whether it is the kind of inventive concept that counts which is on the right side of the why separate in the abstract the law of nature it set a record from whatever it is it is that one a one covers whilst this idea of providing option combination of elements to provide those options and the reason i mentioned the these are just informational well it's it's an improvement in the in the technology the combination of the binary options for me that you're focusing on so the options are can be anything that would assist a user to accomplish a goal that it's passing data back and forth and that that's abstract well it's doing more than passing that a back and forth it's it's a it's a new way of managing the data collecting the data and managing the so that's found an appendix thirtieth's column one of the patent lines thirty three forty four and that talks about the product the prior art systems are only capable of gathering information from one user and providing information to one user and the the specification of the patent says that there was no way prior to the two seven one patent to gather objective measurements from multiple individual those sensors in the context of sensing whether or not your audience of ford or sensing whether or not your audience is paying attention are sitting up straight it doesn't say anything about exercise it does talk about characteristics that are associated with exercise like overexertion monotonous words no not in those words but the patent was understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and certainly the patent office as one that arises in the fitness industry if in the reexamination is directed to a fitness tracking device just because later much later in our exam someone cites to if it is tracking prior art at something that would disclose some of the principles that doesn't mean they're that that it is one in the same that certainly doesn't does not exclude the fitness tracking industry but if we find it directed to fitness tracking is that does that mean that you lose that patents abstract remote locations you could be sensing brain wave activities from somebody exercising in europe while simultaneously measuring the respiratory rate of somebody in south america to the patent teachers of this data has to be maintained in a gran ar level so that when it reaches the associated databases it can be reconciled combined and then put into a format where the associated databases can make a meaningful recommendation of options  muster so addressing the the record at the district court level there were facts that this was not an the examinations which is the providing of multiple options to for users to select from that could not have been done at the time without the inventive combination of the biometric sensors and the given about how the abstract idea of collecting analyzing and and providing feedback that appendix thirty two column five starting wrong lying fifty four this is discussing the options suppose five possible endings are available for the play two of which are happy endings and three of which are satin things if the audience appears determined want to happening i think the audience may be provided with the two options having happy and so on but yes there are different uses but even if it's true that it doesn't say it is tracking i mean if you're measuring blood pressure then exertion and heart rate and the sensors that are doing that why could application that was tracking i die i wouldn't dispute that it at it can't have an application to finish tracking and i think the issue is that the fact that the claims could be read often struck and only i think emphasizes how broad the claims are and really underlines the preemption concern here the i i have one so when asked if it were directed towards finnish travelling it tracks and if they were in the pattern i don't think that would change the analysis  it would still be collecting data analyzing that data and then providing a notification providing results of that data just like electric power whether that's collecting data from multiple power grid which which clearly is directed to the abstract idea of collecting analyzing and distributed information utilizing conventional components in their conventional manner what about the sensors that are disclose include heart rate monitors blood pressure monitors respiration rate i'm sure he detectors pressure sensors load sensors motion detectors acceleration sensors brain wave monitors etc there's really no limit to what kind of  on more than one person and then idea what if one had explained to a method of determining physical fitness and listing of one of blood pressure monitor options are thus inventive concept because i can because options are what god the patent out of reach them but the patent does not describe options as an inventive concept the patent describes options as as o associated or not are again not in the claims and databases that the pentagon is that databases or hardware or software pretty much anything can be used there's  no it's not limited to the specific hardware or purse pacific software in fact the pen is explicit about there are many ways a wide range of programming techniques as well as general purpose hardware system well well electric power had at least a representative claim had it had things beyond giving us results it had updating the measurements and deriving an indicator of reliability i doubt that was from the representative as claimed but i don't but i don't think right now if you're assessing a power grid and say the power grid is overheating or it's in unstable and you get this the when that when the district court characterized the two seven one inventions that it did so based on a cancer claim it didn't focus on any of the claims that included the inventive aspect of the provision of your question and it also talks about and teaches these diverse sensors sensing different types of information in different formats and that's why it has to be kept at a granular level intel  clarify for the court that when it discusses that it's talking about the server that houses the associates of that of s icons not claiming that it has some sort of inventive server but that it's the associated database in the way that that maintains the data structure so that it can then associate an option with a specific user i mean i would just also note that at the district court specification that talks about the improvement that the two seven one patent provides to the prior art declaration from an expert talking about the inventive concepts that are found in the two seven one  should have been construed in icons favor as well as and this is forgive me if i'm confusing cases there is or is this a case in which the declaration has essentially one paragraph on this the two one of three analysis that had been to through been through two reexamination proceedings that was a fact that's part of the intrinsic record at the district court level and the fact that there is some overlap between the