specific applications that comprise the program computer that affects many different steps one is managing the operation of a computerized game another is controlling the user's gaming action another is presenting an offer to purchase a game object dependent upon parameters comprising the practicality of the user that specific that then claim one that's also specific and claims fifteen seventeen affecting a purchase which which is not just acquiring and i think in the game it's an actual purchase having a monetary nexus at that as the claimed work is true about work without interrupting the gaming action of the work the purchase is done in real time and then supplying the game objects without interrupting the gaming actions and i think some things the court to look to try to have a good understanding of imbibes event of this invention is figure four in figure for a what  shows if someone is playing an action game and while they're playing that game it's that that game is like a shoot em up game while they're in the gaming action they can hit all day to replenish ammunition they can hit all are to get a rocket launcher and interruption in cissie focus your view of the let's call the things i did concept of supreme court likes to call these things that it's done without interrupting the game i don't believe so and you know i think the supreme court has not been entirely clear on how you define an abstract idea most kate the cases they've heard they've said well it's it's economic relations so it's an abstract idea but i think that the things the courts are primarily focused upon would be that and  we laid out twelve steps for the court that we told the district court you have to take all those steps into account when you're defining an abstract idea i'd say the primary steps if you want to try to reduce those something less would be you're managing the operation of a game you're controlling the users gaming action you present the offer based upon tracked activity that's a significant limitation that needs to be would need to be included within the statement of any abstract idea if the court determined there was the claim was directed to an abstract idea and then having a purchase and supplying the game object without interrupting any actions so i don't think you can you can ignore the controlling of the users gaming action but where is the controlling operation of a game which includes a game environment in this program to control a gaming action for at least one of these users said madge ng nested with the following steps so isn't the gaming action that's being referred to in the preamble the purchase of some sort of object is unknown to me if it's the user's gaming action as you look down the steps of the claim especially without interrupting it without interrupting the gaming the least one user to purchase the least one game object without interrupting the gaming action right it doesn't seem to me to be controlling the gaming action or programming the break in the action it is creating an environment in which a purchase we made that will whatever was going on over here i i we don't read it that way i mean it's a gaming action of the at least one user here without interrupting not controlling it you want to a sexually the transaction without interrupting it how is that controlling it modifying it affecting it seems to me you're simply not assessing it that's exactly the precise language of the great right don't interrupt it don't get involved in that gaming action let it continue well transactions that not starting again but rather coming in the middle of the game quite frankly because your first step is to track the activity of ignitor in the course of the game which is what your first upset so you're not providing or claiming software running the game york step number one presupposes that the person is already in the middle of the game and what you're claiming is selling them an object during that time well we respectfully disagree that the it says program to control a gaming action for at least one of the rally users but we think that language is clear and we think it's limiting and why do you think that preamble language isn't just a statement purpose well because gaming action that the gaming actions referred to in the claims i computerized game iran or in a in a in a video game in a computerized game the computer alternately controls everything that takes place that's something different about computerized games and video games and games in the prior art and it gets in non computer applications these claims went through seven office actions over years a different generation and the claims are clearly limited to using a program computer to effectuate steps so client and again it gets us into the d v r case and in the d v r case the court talked about something is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically right rising with computers here you have a computerized game in a computerized game the computer controls the action the game the game automatically continues in a game that that you and i apply in a and in the prior art in a you know our real life in our computer game the players control the action the players composites they want in this game if i decide to get a rocket launcher the game continues my player might get killed so if you look at figure four as you can see they can hit all art to obtain a rocket launcher without any need of interruption frequent they're qualified for this because they have in their account the tracked activity matches up and this purchase transaction with real consideration with real money takes place without interruption in real time and that's just something that that's something that came along with computerized games where computers running everything even if a player decides to make a purchase the game keeps going unless something happens here in the prior art the solution was we'll just pause the game and art that was the closest prior art this game solved that problem of now we have computerized games the game always goes it's always continuing it's being controlled by the computer and it solves it by coming up with all the steps where you have a track that pivotal imitation where you have these accounts set out and this is a seamless transaction where the game object is not only purchased for money real money consideration but it's also supplied in real time without interrupting the players the gaming action the player that something that came about with computerized games it wasn't a problem before then so it fits very well with it's certainly a computer specific problem and not an economic problem which is certainly if this was if we were addressing an economic problem if this were economic relations that would be somewhat of a different matter but here  even if you try to reduce explain to an by computer well but that those are some aspects but you you've not mentioned that you're controlling the users gaming action you've not mentioned that you present the offer based upon parameters in clinic tracked activity user that's a significant limitation of this claim that just can't be ignored in trying to reduce it to some  new and different all those things need to be accounted for if you're going to try to steal some abstract idea from this one problem with the district courts decision was it distilled said the abstract idea with the offer in sale of items to players in the course of a game that ignores the tracked activity limitation it ignores they that the the purchase is done with with real consideration without interrupting  the the gaming action the user ignores that that the game object is supplied without interrupting the gaming action the user and if you win the district court to steal the claim down too far then it made it preemption the district court also we say forgotten or neglected to give adequate weight to these other whatever how we use if you must define it in an abstract idea then you have to look at these other steps in going this out as an abstract idea at a minimum even if you define it there's there would be invented steps i'll save the rest of my time for a while thank you ok thanking the syrians version of a buy sell relationship a game happens to be a concept in the context of the playing of a game but as was abstract about playing the game under these conditions  at its heart it is and if we look at the steps it is the creation of an account it's a determination of the eligibility of a player to purchase a game object it's setting the price of the game object it is offering the object to the player it is providing the object to the player during the course is pretty specific to me to talk about it you could say that these steps are no you could say a lot of other its core an abstract idea there it was this notion of supplying copyrighted media in exchange for the display of the diverse means here as a district court found as we believe the core abstract idea here is permitting game players to purchase game objects during a game and there aren't they know and this prima cord is so that just about every  second part of the mayo framework under section one hundred one when the port inquires as to what else is here is there something more is there some inventive concept that would transform these claims into patentable subject matter and so here the additional steps that we've heard about such as the tracking of user activity and the supplying of a game so here yes i mean clearly the summary of the invention in the abstract the special the entire body of the specification are all directed to this very broad notion of transaction advantages of the court's decision by love that the claims were limited to electronic games to video games we don't think the claims can be fairly read that way but we're obviously here  days when it says something is programmed to do something or other is that reasonable to think that they're thinking about computers yes absolutely around distinguishing  the claim on the one hand and the question of whether or not the game being played is a video game clanged one does not specify that the game being played is any storm of video stock market transactions is against you is that what you would call dating action with not rating on the stock market no and that's why i qualify my answer your honor that to the extent that a transaction like that is limitation provided then it is the the steps that are recited here are effected so you and i are playing poker and how my going to use the program computer to track our activity of the game while i am simultaneously purchase think your argument doesn't make any sense to me i don't know why you're spending your time arguing it because you've got a lot of other good arguments but if you want to admit is where you want to focus your effort you've got me all in at the right so you tell me how how is this actually going to work when you poker or a board game of monopoly or anything else and my buying boardwalk on the computer tell me how does it work your are i'm simply directing my comments to what the what is reciting it in the claim you are claiming that this clai read on anything ever how it could be operable to work while these steps are performed on a computer and you and i are playing whatever game of your choice you would like to articulate as an example for me it would be not be a good example but the way i read these claims it could apply for  example want to read the claims in a way in which you can come up with no example in which a scenario could ever give rise or implicate your honor i'll get i'll give two examples if i could and i really don't think i but i agree with your honor that this is certainly in my mind at least the possibility that you could have a game referee tracking the activities of the players with an i pad on a sarah way and when a player hits a bad shot into the trees  applicants solve a problem that was specific to the internet namely the problem of of a website luring away traffic when the user goes through the very normal function of clicking involves overriding the normal functioning of an effect the internet or at least is normal functioning of a sequence of events that occurs when a user presses and mouse clicks or otherwise selects a hyperlink and so the solution there was rooted in a technological change to the way that the internet normally works here there is no such solution no window opens up that allows you to make this purchase that why isn't the case the prior to this those sorts of purchases can be made without interrupting and stopping game play which is part of what the prior art with prosecution was about so why isn't this actually a technological solution in the form of we have programmed this in a manner that allows for opening up a new window while simultaneously continuing games like this in fact your honor there was some disclosure of a technical or technological solution that permitted that kind of activity then this case would be closer to d d r but in fact the only reason that limitation is in the claims  is just close to that technological solution you think would be a harder case for you so what is it yes i flee it's code that you would have because no code in the d d r patent go back and look at it there's no code disclosed in that patent yet the court went ahead and found that articulat program that would create and open up a separate web page was enough without articulating the code and isn't that kind of parallel like they have here number on a respectful way and the reason why is this first it was not the case that until the su cartwright came along it was impossible for a game player to acquire technologically possible for a game player to acquire a game object without interrupting the game mr cartwright did not invent technology that permitted not to happen the same way the inventor in d d r came up with an actual way of overriding the normal functioning of a mouse click and that happening but it isn't it's not like it articulates for you the mechanics of how a computer game will continue to play in the background without interrupting if that that's part of it your honor it is more that there was never any technological problem before mr cartwright came along that prevented a game object from being provided without interruption and there was no technological solution and is not practical articles in the four four the players here to do something with the luxury i hope of the presiding judge because i know i've made you go over your time by a lot but some of it anyway because what i'm struggling with and i have a lot of one to one case is that my doctor now and in every one have to do that i think would d d r stands for is that where there is some technological problem that requires a technological innovation advance to overcome that problem  thereby enable the claimed invention to be practiced that is one of the lines that i see t v are as strong the claims here by contrast did not overcome some technological problem it was and i think that if you want to you you raised it correctly if you if you can be said to the abstract is obtaining an advantage that's one thing but that's not what these claims are about these claims are much more specific than that and i think that's where the district court in the first instance just simply erred in defining an abstract idea that failed to look at the claim as a whole as male requires and it failed to take into account real limitations in the claim abstract idea you might find one illustrates what what happened here by any estimation the abstract idea that was identified by the district court is way overly broad and that led him down an inco here as far as there was a question about stock transaction i think judge moore got it right i just don't think i mean this is this is about gains it's about gaming it's a it's there's just it's not about trading stock golf or hawking you know so it wouldn't apply meaning if you you could maybe use hindsight and come up with an electronic golf game that you could try to fit within the claims but as far as if you're talking about golf is existence prior art no that doesn't follow these claims at the but the thing is though if the computerized golf game involves attracting the attention of it involved purchases with any written gaming actually if it involved supplying game logic without interrupting the gaming action then that we different going to try to reduce it you could say that it is managing operation of the game controlling the users gaming action ok but i don't agree with you that any of those are limitations in this place so what else ok presenting offers to purchase a game object depended on parameters comprising the track activity to users but there was nothing noble novel about offering users the ability to purchase object that's why all of that language was there before the claim was rejected  in overcoming those rejections well until we added it i mean you know we you can overcome an objection whether you agree with the examiner or not but i what i would say is you have to look at the tell and claim you have to include the track activity limitation you have to include the control by of the gaming action by the computer you have to include the purchase and real purchase not just acquiring something but a purchase takes place interrupting and the game object is supplied without interrupting game action any if you try to reduce any abstract elements then we submit that would be that would be error and again i would i would circle back to figure four because there was a statement that there is nothing in venice here you look at figure four there's nothing like it in the prior  environment that shows that i'm the user is in the midst of an action game so it's a shoot em up games in other words i'm shooting at them they're shooting at me to reload i can hit  ammunition it doesn't interrupt my shooting because i can use my other hand to do the altering or if i want to get a rocket launcher because i'm against a really tough opponent then i can hit all our in arm myself with a rocket launcher again without any interruption the  gameplay as you can see at the bottom of the screen it shows the account which means that there's there's a determination here that i have enough money to purchase a rocket launcher and i can make that purchase seamless without interrupting the gaming action the rocket launch resupplies when these games with your weapons