morning here on earth may please the court the critical issue in this case in the word brief sixty four to sixty eight overall says that on appeal only preserves specific argument with respect to claims one to three eight and nine and fourteen and that's right ninety five that five ten twelve thirteen and seventeen of zero nine six and claims two and three of raise any additional without providing the in the analysis in the order without mentioning the technical limitations of the deep and it claims and refusing to consider the relevant evidence presented by the patent holder first the district court erred by failing to available computer resources limitation and in fact the non abstractness and inventiveness of this is the fact that though at the local computer level the local code puter is able to track the availability of computer resources resource the initial locating computer might your honor but the local computer does not consider network resources and that's what is novel and unconventional about the coho patents the co captains claim technology that at the at the level at the factors such as whether or not there is computer failure whether or not there is network latency and that was not claimed in this top down approach by the prior art top down approach tried prior art only has the initial allocating computer doing one division and sending it to  a computer which if there is an error at that local computer in the prior art then the local computer has to send that task back up to the initial and allocating computer and that is less efficient than the technology claimed in the where in the colo column three you specifically say note that the term allocate and it's going to gauges may refer to initial allocation her subsequent sub allocation after all the allocation process is self similar and you go on to to further described how essentially it's the same thing only doing it over again yes your honor it essentially it is self somewhere there is and another allocating and there is another portion it's being repeated a computer below if there was a problem at that second computer at that billo computer if that computer was failing if it was running slow if there were storage capacity issues then that computer would have to send the task back to the initial allocating computer and then the initial allocating computer would have to send the sas back down to whatever computer wanted to send it to whereas here the national allocating computer sends the task down to the local computer allocating computer and the sub allocating computer is able to determine based on computer resources network factors that that you know this computer is not you know behaving properly this computer is failing this computer is not doesn't have enough storage space and well it is acting as the initial allocating computer in that it is able to divide subdivided this hask to allocate the task into transfer the task yes correct but that was something that was not found in the  talks about us patent numbers three eight eight and two two five and it describes the the same computer was being used for allocating monitoring and reallocating task for is a multi tiered distribution and that was not found in the the prior art and that and then within the context as the deep in it claims are also other inventive concepts which were not and which were not considered by the solution a specific implementation of the solution for example and figure two of the patent which is located on page eighty x one one three and this shows an exemplary architecture of the network with the appendix one eighteen in the discussion of the prior art the the specification itself notes that the prior art considered resource factors involved in determining whether to allocate a task force into a computer including switching it allocated task force into a different computer if one if the one first assigned the task portion becomes occupied so that the determination of available resources is disclosed of the priority it's conventional technology so that that elements of claim twelve does not add anything to the to the i was dragged out of the argument that in the primary you actually had to go back to the original computer and there was computers that the task be allocated to but again that's not adding anything to that so the basic concept that you can divide a task multiple ways it doesn't matter how many times you divide the task by into how many computers just as it would be in the case of you know organizing you know human experience you could have any number of people and you could divide a task any number of ways into any number of tiers that's simply an abstract concept mind my problem solving is that there's an corroborating from the initial allocating you're correct that the initial allocated computer could allocate a task to one hundred different right so computers just addition on the the point of the court having to whether the court has to address in its opinion each of the dependent claims i did this this court has held in the cleveland clinic case and the content extractions case that that is not necessary in those cases as well there was no claim by claim discussion of a lower court's opinion but this court held that because the claim discussed by the district court was representative it was sufficient to try to provide a explanation of why that the patents and all of the patent claim should be invalidated there's no distinction here in this case in fact if anything there was more evidence that the district court considered the district the dependent claims here because there was a briefing on that the reason we should assume that that that claim twelve is and isn't anything different is because the prior art did that and yet you didn't seem to be able to point to any primary well  prior art that we're pointing to here is the specification itself so this was disclosed in the patent had the i don't recall now what the p tabs decision was as they claim twelve of whether if there really is no inventive concept by simply repeating something that is an abstract concept as well know it is merely being applied here in the conventional way the the patent specification replete with discussions of this is applied to generic computers in a generic network there is no specific implementation discussed anywhere in the claims which distinguishes this case from this court's decisions  question we're saying that the court didn't even consider the deepening claims which was clear error at this stage in it and designated claim one of the three nine five and has a right representative claim without even looking at i mean i