was one of the pioneers in the field of portable music players and in developing their own that you bought product they developed a will device with a real user interface that solve real problems with the user interfaces of the prior but more to the other parties in order to be penned eligible it's not enough that the claims recite a particular solution to a problem in a technological field but further requires that the solution must not already have been known in the art even in other is simply whether the claims are directed to an improvement of computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea and under the proper legal test the claims here to easily satisfy section one  occasion again describes the improvement in described the advantages of the improvements and that's also if you want to one requires whether that same solution had been used before in other contexts that's a question of patentability that's not a question of pa dispute that user interface technology is a technological field and printing technology is the court held that the claim subject matter is directed to a specific improvements to the way computers operate and the same thing applies here the determination are also relevant and informed questions under section one hundred one when there is an issue about whether a solution actually solve the problem and whether that solution was routinely conventional so for example  confirms or at least supports it is relevant to the fact that it was not a conventional and routine solution that was used in products do you think that only applies to abstract i d s the exception or two other portions of what i all testing but none the less without obvious because all it it was implemented a law of nature using conventional methods i mean certainly the commercial success of any breakthrough that office was stanch all that it had no bearing on the question of what their clothes and eligible patent are is i think we're focusing on the abstract idea exception and the argument that why does it make any difference eligible invention now in some cases the invention might simply just be cleaning the abstract idea and that's why it's important and especially it's clear that you have to look to see what is the focus of the claims is the focus on the claims the actual change could have been claimed specifically and more precisely in a way that then displayed and by having that sequence of interactions it improves a technology and makes it more user friendly and makes it more efficient and it makes for a better product and so i think that there is specific sequence of screens of displaying categories and then allowing the user to select a category and then display subcategories under that category and then allow user select a subcategory and then display in the appropriate items and then  the three levels of the hierarchy in a single display screen and so the claims here are more specific than that and so the claims here don't pretend to cover all different ways of doing hierarchies they cover to clear weight using a sequence of three display screens and that is one aspect of the invention or so just to clarify on the technical or technological problem being soft and spread portable media player problem of not user interface to navigate and celebs among hundreds of songs in addition and often frustrating that it is the displays can only show a few song titles at one time and the limited control make it difficult for users to arbitrarily i mean clearly the hierarchical stuff is an abstract idea and if you just said to this hierarchical system on a computer i think it would comfortably fit in with all other and eligibility decisions but claim one and i don't know if this is enough because it's still awfully high level on a chart to me but it does talk about using three screens and it's successive order why isn't that enough to make it an eligible idea because it's solving the technical problem as your friend call them what i want you to tell me is why the idea of calling using three separate screams to access the information as a new way of using a user interface is it not conventional or isn't it  technological improvement get out of the notion that the organization is the problem i agree that but this claim has the additional language that it uses successive screens because it solving problems about argument not like i don't want arguments well when you look at to do cases that when we talk about conventional i thought we were talking about equipment and certainly the equipment maybe conventional but i don't think we are extend well basically what you're doing is essentially limiting the abstract idea of providing wireless delivery of broadcast content to a senator or telephone and that is not enough  about the abstract idea itself is conventional but i don't think that's what we're supposed to do sometimes in looking at step two we'll look and see whether there's conventional additional elements and whether those make it not abstract anymore but i don't think there are analysis that this court has talked about and it i don't think that it means that we just look at the overall idea of the claim and see whether it's conventional i think that's one of two one of three and so i think i think that your other answer about how you are saying that can i just i started up that you don't have much time can i just ask you i know that in hindsight today the idea of displaying this type of information which i agree with you is obstructs so they'll start there on three successive screens why is that not a step screen one screen to screen three right instead of putting it all out i mean if they said here's this hierarchy we're putting it on the computer screen they loose but they come up with the idea and i do think that we have to consider that this is an m p three player at a certain time although there cannot claim limitations that don't go there but they are trying to solve a specific problem and and you know going from all on one screen to three screens may not be enough but i transforms the claims to say do we screen one and then screen to screen three i think that is minor post illusion activity so please dictated by the size of the screen this was not the first thing that anybody replied the idea of her organization to small screens in fact computers have done that since the one nine hundred seventy six so it depends on the size of your screen they were not even the first ones as reported today the hunger actually applied to a small screen so depending on the size of the screen the amount of devices that handle email addresses calendar and office applications well that's and as signals from the portable media player so that there is an interpretation which is indeed problem out there it simply taking the same solution the computing always done take hierarchical organization as a way to organize files protected nor was there any real technological solution because they didn't invent a new display they didn't invent a information well it's not really the problem here is that the improvement the supposed improvement is simply taking the abstract idea applying it to this context and that's not happening a little you can't rely on an abstract idea to supply your invented concept except simply taking a client to this type of device which was a new type of device in the late one nine hundred ninety s doesn't make it happen eligible and that's the fundamental problem in this case because the claims really are directive three