c x loyalty with respect to the substitute claims as an initial matter there is an issue that took up a substantial amount of the briefing to this court i think has now been finally resolved has not appealable so i don't intend to address that point during argument unless any panel members have questions i'd like to i'd like to then move to the the intelligibility of the substitute my st point is that the substitute claims on appeal are directly addressed by this court's decision and the university of florida research foundation case that is a case in which the court  held and this was the language from from the holding neither the two hundred and fifty one dollars patent the patent in that case nor its claims explain how the drivers do the conversion this was a case where the issue was whether or not a conversion step rendered a claim eligible and the word how was actually underlined in the original by the court and that's exactly what we have here so muster even then it might be helpful for me to know what led the board astray in your view to conclude that these amendments were ok so i think the answer this is fairly simple and there are two parts to it your honor this court's ruling in university of florida an example forty two dollars p t o in its guidelines gave an example of a claim involving a conversion step and said because of that conversion step the claim eligible during the oral argument we talked about example forty two when i made very clear that example forty two if it applied at all was no longer good law in light of this court's decision f the panel said quite clearly that it was bound by example forty two now to deal with example forty two which which had conversion language very similar to what we're talking about here the court went through and a fair amount of detail and distinguished the substitute claim from o and the court made specific findings that allowed it to distinguish the claim here from the from example forty two dollars however when the court got to alice step t which it calls step two be the court wholly ignored the university of florida decision which addressed both our staff one and l a step two and said that when you're dealing with  the particular example where there was a claim with a conversion step that the conversion step does nothing to change the you know eligibility of the patent claim unless it describes how the conversion  occurs in this case the evidence is and i would say the evidence is actually undisputed on this you can look at the claim and you can look at the specification of the patent and you can look at two would missions that were made by merits of counsel converted information in the format of let's say a vendor an airline or a hotel room provider to the format that could be read by the gluey of a loyalty program participant it's not in the claim it's not in the specification and during the arguments when the panel asked mr evans merits of counsel about this mr evans admitted that the conversion was a well understood routine conversion was not a specific type of conversion and it was a conversion that people of skill in the art knew how to accomplish there didn't have to be a description of how the conversion would have her and of problem but it does not describe the converting process of solving a technical problem that it does not describe the converting process as providing a technological technical solution over the prior art and it the problem is they just put in the idea of conversion which is not eligible that's exactly correct that's exactly correct it would be i think the perfect analogy is let's say that i'm traveling to europe and i plan to go to both france and to germany and i can speak either french or german which i can't i have enough trouble in english and i want to use an electronic device to help me speak to people in those countries if there were a pattern which said i claim a translation engine to translate english to french and french to english in english to german and german to english but doesn't say how one does that that would be ineligible if you had a pattern where the specification said here's exactly how you would do that that certainly could be patent eligible and here the people have made very clear that the idea of and ways of doing data conversions were well known or well known in conventional so you have a step with no explanation and no f or the four other cases from this court which hold essential of the same thing interval affinity intellectual ventures and amaranth and maybe they didn't apply you were far off because they didn't want to essentially hold example forty two to being not good law is the panel focused on the fact that we did not provide expert testimony in rebuttal with respect to the substitute claims our view was and is that there was no reason to do that because they were simply nothing in the specification nothing in the claims and nothing in the conclusory declaration of their expert mr wiener there required any sort of rebuttal and in fact you can search the wiener declaration and with respect to the conversion step you will find nothing  that in which mr winter can point to any sort of technical details as to how the conversion occurred no merits waves it's all arms in its brief i guess i mix my metaphors i don't know how you wave your arms in the br about the details of conversion agree with that i would point out a couple things thing one that decision is still subject to requests for reconsideration than appeal the supreme court secondly to thrive decision on which it was based concern timing question the question was was it was a petition timely filed which did not require for the factual development here by contrast the issues underlying the decision had significant additional factual development and  well the wrong direction is they simply ignored the hidden account the testimony was unequivocal that if you look at all of the elements of the claim the combination of those elements was novel was non obvious it was not well understood it was the built the systems back in the day in two thousand he explained at great length how they tried to get the costs out of programs by moving them to the internet and clinic that there are technical barriers to that and that the claims in the patent here solve those problems and and so his testimony was not only from the perspective of looking at the claims in the patent in the art it was cited by c s wealthy but also from his own experience in the day and again he was from princeton very smart gentleman he worked at dreier early who was working on the leading accounts of the time american airlines a loyalty program many of them there set forth in his declaration interested witness he's worked for them for fifteen years he dismissed the hidden accounts is nothing more than information he dismissed that as part of one hundred and thirty two of his declaration he called his account nothing more than information you have to look at all of the elements of the claim in deciding whether or not something is well understood or conventional or those kinds of tests the micro case the basket case the salesman case for that proposition page fifty one dollars it discuss these concepts for a while and they kept the ninety the hidden account as a technical component but then finally it had to admit page fifty one of the final decision separate inquiries from the section want to warn off i'm sorry to interrupt but i've been trying to follow your argument and i just maybe it's just i'm missing something when we're talking about the head in the compound the claims don't require that the actual dollar amount of the transaction be hidden from the patris upright and the specification isn't doesn't even discuss what it seems you're saying  account is hidden from the participant which is required by the claim that if you hide the account from the participant obviously hiding information in the account from the participant and mr winter testified that a person of skill they are reading this claim would appreciate that sense of loyalty program has to work for the participant doesn't know what's actually being paid otherwise the perceived value drops the loyalty program doesn't work for  person reading the claim would appreciate that that when you say you have a hidden account obviously the values then you can also hidden from the participant that was another place i believe where the board misunderstood or misstated the record  because everybody knows that to run a loyalty program you have to deliver more perceived value than a cost to you sort of inherent characteristic of running a successful program so the board in looking at these things that dismissed the hidden situation where there is oral testimony from interested witness about things twenty years ago the barbwire fence case would tell you that is inherently unreliable for purposes of validating a claim cast against someone who lived back in the day  asserting absolutely that the combination of elements was novel and non obvious was not well understood was not routine was not conventional and so you have a dearth of evidence on one side you have substantial credible evidence on the other side very clearly that those the combination of elements was was novel and non obvious there's no preemption issue here because as stated these claims require a hidden account and so there's not a there's not some kind of broad preemption issue to worry about and it's also since his account is not a computer outside of conventional computer element this isn't the kind of case where you say hey there's just a collection of standard computer components  not nearly the admission he'd have you believe that it was what i said there was in the context of the disclosure in the patent figure three and figure four which was what was being discussed the time during the hearing that a person of skill in the art would understand how to go from that disclosure specification and so this idea that that the specification is devoid of of how to do this is simply not accurate count this is just laurie your defending the patentability of the substitute claims no one has used the word substitute claims and original claims which would have been stated clarity but across appeal deals with the original claims would you address battles a little bit please i believe that everything that i've said to this point addresses both sets of claims because the original claims also had the hidden account their original claims mr weener testified to great length i give you those quotes that the combination of those elements was novel with non obvious is not well understood is not repeat not conventional because the combination of elements including the hidden account as we cited in the original when you look at the the elements in combination for the original claims that combination of elements is found nowhere in the prior art and their expert doesn't even say it's from the prior art he just says i'm not going to talk about the hidden account because i don't think it counts i'm going to talk about the other four elements in isolation so he blew it from consider the elements in isolation he blew it from ignoring one of the elements and he never consider the combination of the underbody testimony of mr wiener who was an those comments about princeton grads my experience indicates that a princeton grad is not entitled to any degree of infallibility with respect to patent or any other issues let me turn to a hidden program account in your hono consumer know what the loyalty program paid for the airline ticket or the hotel room that is you make the consumer think that if he he or she traded in a high points  hundred points that he got that he or she got one hundred points worth of an airline ticket this is nothing different than what merchants on the piers of the markets at higher  because time is short i wondered if you would could respond your friend spent quite a bit of time dealing with the expert testimony about novelty and the st and it seems to me the argument against that is that technique and that clearly is something different that while we look to step two of our in the local analytical framework so i wondered if you could explain or have any comment on that of claims always does is add details to narrow the scope of an abstract idea and it does not matter one whit under this court's analysis whether  t making clear during the argument that the piece at least the one p t the job judge was speaking felt that he was not able to hold example forty two to be no longer a good law in light of like concluding point is that there are two entirely different ways that this court can reverse the p to have with respect to the substitute clams one is the failure to follow university of florida and the four other federal circuit inconsistent findings by administrative agencies such as the p to have that as a matter of law means that there is no substantial evidence so there are two fully independent and sufficient bases upon which this court can and i submit should  here we don't even have all conventional computer elements we additionally have a hidden account which is not a conventional computer element so all the more here we have an inventive concept it's patterned eligible and on that basis i submit this the question of the shadow records and i was the shadow represent alice were nothing like the hidden account here the shadow records in alice were two separate shadow records set up by a rd party who shadowed each end of the day each of the shadow accounts were supposed to track the actual account and then the intermediary would tell the two parties party and party b hey the st three transactions are fun the bull by both sides because of assets there to close them and the last two maybe not because they don't appear to be the assets there to fund them according to our shadow account analysis the st three transactions have been closed for valid values and for and for consideration that both parties would fully understand the last two transactions would not close because the shadow account indicated that one party or the other could not perform in sharp contrast here the shadow account is not understood by the participants the shadow never knows what's actually paid in dollars for the for the goods and services they're buying they just know that they gave up points and and as a result the shadow account here is very different than the accounts that were used in alice i think that also confused the board because the board thought those accounts were the same they're not they're very different how they function how they  work the issue that merchants all the time have not disclosed what they pay for things that supports our position it supports our position because as mr weener explained in declaration a person running still not reading these cla would appreciate that that hidden account would hide the dollar value from the participant so that the program could conduct a successful loyalty program the perceived value would be higher than the actual cost and that's what drives a lot of the program unlike the past here the participant gets to shop around directly with the vendors and gets to shop from one vendor to the next and that simply decide what they want to buy and so it's a much better program it works differently than the old way where you had to talk to the program administrator who then talk to the vendor to make a redemption and so it's overcoming the technological hurdles of the internet was just too transparent it told the participant too much information and therefore it wasn't available as it was a loyalty redemption vehicle mr weener who worked in the day work with the leading companies in the day none of them could solve the problem and it took to overcome that problem so i submit that this is a technological significant technological improvement but it's was not routine