the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and this honorable court focus of the claims not whether the invention can be distilled into a single sentence abstract idea the claims are eligible when they do two things under this court's precedents st they have to focus on a specific certain improvement in computer network platform capabilities or functionality or not insisted on a processor system that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers i don't think we dispute that you can take these claim elements and break them down into individual abstract ideas but in diamond the deer the supreme court said that's not the analysis the analysis looks at the claims that a whole and in fact the claims here build on one another so the st step is calculating the unique identifier for each individual for each data in a data item and then the next element is talk about  comparing a request for a particular data item against all the other data items in the in the data system and that was the particular element that this court focused on its prior personal  explained the problems that arise in conventional data processing system when using traditional naming conventions and then describe the claim apparatus for resolving that problem using the and if we were to conclude that with respect to at least each individual that we've got cases that are on point that establish that the each individual step is an abstract idea so if you take that as the just as a hypothetical is it do you have an argument that this ordered combination to somehow make the combination of three abstract ideas step abstract and you have an argument about that with respect to these particular steps i do the question again goes to whether the order combination improves computer network platform functionality or it's simply an abstract idea and most of the computers as a tool and in this case they do improve computer functionality as this court recognizes the prior systems without using with using   provided a functional improvement that allows things like the internet to well let me just  know where we are not what we're arguing is that there is a documented and fundamental improvement to the network platform and so by substituting the use of content based identifiers for subjective names and locations in a data processing system that improves the network itself and is very similar to what this court held in packet intelligence versus nec scouts  says not too long ago in fact those types of claims had very much the same sort of determining and accessing that this particular patent has but this aside we've got a case called secure mail and they talk about improving the efficiency of performing an abstract idea by using technological tools does not constitute a technological improvement with that that was in our opinion a security male i am your honor so those i guess so those are the two rebuttal points to what you've been telling us so why am i wrong because in secured male there was no improvement to the mail system itself it in a conventional way you are and you invented the inventors care came up with an entirely new naming and storage convention that avoided the problems that were inherent in prior art conventional systems where you had  is that right it is a claim and vast although i would disagree that the claims are not directed on again where you look at the focus of the claims in the claims don't need to recycle how the solution is captured but instead means or methods and here you look at the claims in the more combination it does say exactly how you do it by giving them all of the data items in the network regardless of size a content based name and then comparing it against the plurality comparing one constant face name against all of the others in the network and then press seems to me that if you go down that route what you're claiming is  data management in the internet and that is horrendously broad well it really doesn't because that is not what we're claiming data management what we're claiming is the use of content based identifiers compare against the plurality of other identifiers in the entire network to perform very using the results of perform the operations and all you have to do is look at what it will be the prior art that this patent builds on top of it and see that there are other ways to do it for example and what if you knew the name of the love or the you found the file conventionally with its name and you knew its location and then what you could do was not backed up a particular piece of the file that you had on your computer if it was already on another computer and what this invention does is it expands that technology considerably so that you don't have to for example backup a piece of data not just if it is in the exact same location in the exact same file that you previously backed up but whether it is anywhere in the entire network anywhere and  similar from this court including contents extraction and secure mail i'd also highlight the intellectual ventures vs symantec case and the smart systems vs chicago transit case as well as all of these cases involved generating an identifier based on a hash function or some other mathematical algorithm comparing that identifier with the other that i'll use using a result that's comparison to either deny access to a resource or to delete unwanted contents i get exactly the same three step process as personal web claims here and in eligible for the very same reason i'd like are abstract well what about your friend's argument as i understand it that there are a fish and game for the networks in the uses they've claimed in the spat why doesn't that give them something  beyond what our cases of hell i think that the talents their argument is they have to say though that there is an improvement to the functionality of computers and they haven't then added that if anything these claims just improve internet and that that could be patent now enjoyable absolutely if you are improving the functionality of the computer the network and not simply improving the abstract process and i  identify improve the process of managing data as the court has held many times merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of a process is not enough for i think that's all that's happening here they're adding computers functionality to our using computer functionality to try and more efficiently perform this abstract process of of have been using content based identifiers tied dennis by located and managed library books for decades and claims on all the claims are doing is adding computer functionality to try and increase the speed books and you know here the the content based identifiers perform the same function and again i highlight that you know that efficiency gain from these content based identifiers that that personal web focuses on those were to make more efficient the process of managing data and in every one of those cases the court found that simply to the extent there was any improvement it was an improvement to the abstract process and not an improvement to computer network or computer functionality or is it sufficient that the operations that are stated in the claims will simply have that effect i think the latter your honor the question is whether implementing this claim would achieve the purported improvement and if you were to look at those and excuse me but doesn't the specification discuss improvements that are premised on those claims steps well no i mean the the the if you look at these the particular claims and the question is is the structure in this claim accomplishing the goals that the specifications set out and i would say no if you were to look at claim twenty four dollars for example new use of an old technology provides the inventive concepts and i would just highlight that that isn't enough to say the claims even if you were to consider the combination even if you were to consider all of the elements and those claims court emphasized that if a claims only invented is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well understood techniques then the claim has not been transformed so we believe the district court progressively held that there were no inventive concepts either individually or in combination instead the claimed simply used the abstract ideas in a conventional way again just like the claim that this court found not pat this particular passage the improvement to network functionality is almost the same as what we saw in the st the packet intelligence case and the invention is not the hash value itself but many many inventions th improve network functionality make use of identifiers and that's true in packet intelligence where they create an identifier called the flow signature analyze that flow signature against other flow signatures in a table and then u se the result to perform certain operations and that was found to be patented eligible because it improves a network functionality the same was true in the  manager a form of a identifier was used to quote in the claim language determine access authorisation based on an object level label and that was used to improve network security again and improve the functionality of the network excel just like the claims that issues here in contrast cases white smart systems didn't improve never functionality it simply used a bank card to gain access to mass transit nothing to improve network functionality same was true in bridgend post where the identifier was used to attract users and deliver targeted media such as advertisements again no improvement in computer functionality or network functionality and in the miami case the same was true where the the identifier was used in connection with virus scanning useful here because it's undisputed that these patents don't simply computerized the dewey decimal system the invention here would be a ten to taking every book and every library and randomly organizing them shuffling them not putting them on subject matter or even a numerical order and then giving a librarian a random number and saying you know don't authorize that book or eliminate all d or locate it based on just this number and by the way if there is a single word in the book that differs then don't do any of these operations that's the kind of improvement to the network functionality that is comparable to because it changed the way that files are located and distributed across computer networks in the functionally improved way it is a way that was that was hindering the development of the internet when when you had these diverse networks with different file management systems different naming the occasions and conventional names there was a there was a limit to how