not supposed to read the claims that are really brought level because you can do that and say everything's abstract that saddam brought level because it has that idea like it but your claims have to be directed at something that's articulate what they claimed her directed to that's not an abstract idea if we are not contesting here's what i would say and i apologize for any confusion on this we are not going to contest the patent office assertion that the claims that that's an abstract idea well i think that they're wrong when they find that that's an abstract idea because i think that's very different and more specific than the types of things that the supreme court has looked at it in a fire as an abstract idea and change do is a fundamental or longstanding economic practice or building block i think but the pension as it is a pension is this is a big problem in commerce that somebody purchases something and they get koin yes that's what it's trying to do and we would say is so consider a some sort of software invention or networking invention where you're limited in the need for electronic transactions or improving the efficiency of a network or a system where limited  exception in other words we're not obviating the need for it like st ones are eligible either unless it's more than just the abstract idea of getting rid of something and whatever we were talking about it's got to be specific enough and directed to a specific technological advance rather than the more general d idea that you just stated so i'm not sure how that example helps you say that this is not similar when this is also directed a very high level idea you know a way of processing a financial transaction a thing cash my apologies jonathan i wasn't clear enough to apologize but it's not a very helpful answer to say well this other set of things would clearly be eligible in the way you stated it seem clearly ineligible and i i wasn't intending to say that we flew be eligible when i was intend to say was and that's the type of thing that might demonstrate an improvement in pewter or network functionality and so it commercial exchange i mean i think that's what you're trying to say if you're trying to identify with the system is i think it's proving that it improves the efficiency of you know it retail transaction but i don't think at this point it's really result it's this identified abstract idea of facilitating cash transactions that need for a customer coins of change do we think that it's uncontested that this claim actually includes unconventional combination of steps reciting  from the brief for the director at page and page fifteen where they said it is knowledge no argument that we said that claim one uses an unconventional combination of steps to provide a civic or practical way you move the money here and then he moves it back here if i'm just trying to understand what is what you think there are some extra steps are being performed here with this track and field and then debited later what is the purpose of that i think my understanding is that if the payment networks in point of sale terminals were set up to easily return money over to credit money to someone's debit card or something like that and not in a return that everything there might be no need for this type of step but as it is this is a way to work within conventional technology conventional point of sale terminals conventional payment networks and still find a creative way innovative way to accomplish the desired result which is unconventional combination of steps that sheaves the result i mean what you're talking about sounds pretty good you know doesn't it i mean like this is only way that it can be implemented on the system that exists but there's absolutely nothing in the specifications  and certainly we would wish to the specification but i think that it still remains an unconventional combination of steps that achieve this result and i think that the issue we have with the board's decision is that the board rather than considering and they seem to acknowledge that it's unconventional but rather than considering that they just ignored the step they thought that they could just ignore the steps part of the abstract idea and we don't think that's appropriate i mean this the steps are part of the abstract idea that whether they're arranged in conventional ways or not they're still abstract doesn't that make it eligible well i think that what we would say is that you know step two you can't go back to the abstract idea you have to show something outside of the abstract idea that makes it whatever the phrasing is unconventional in that light that makes perfect sense i think that what would say is two things two major points the st point would be that and i'm quoting from general licensing here this court's recent abstract abstract idea exception decisions  stress that are claimed invention must embody a concrete solution to a problem having the specificity required to transform a claim from one claimant only result to one claiming a way of achieving it and i think that here we're actually reciting a way of specifically achieving  and morse inventors received a patent and in at least one claim directed to a particular technical solution to a problem whether for cutting ice or for printed at a distance you can electromagnetism but each and then are also lost a claim that encompassed all solutions for achieving your desired result you can figure into your little time you want if you want to go on and you can be sure of your time i'm going to keep going for another minute or so and i'm stan thank you so i think that here that's exactly what we do and we have a specific  a step further and here we believe that these unconventional steps rashly inventive over this identified abstract idea in other words even if you assume that you didn't a fight at the a facilitating cash transaction about the need for a customer to receive coins has changed you from a couch per steps there's tendering cash there's now between and there's crediting it with the board determined is that those are fundamental economic practices that debit and credit tina are building blocks banking that this is a fact of land that the claim is to a method of organizing human activity and therefore abstract and out sept to the additional limitations which are simply a process are a credit and debit card understand how this actually would work i mean  tracking fee which is equal to whatever that change point changed do and then credits twice as much debits that amount and then credits twice amount i don't know that some way to make sure to verify that it's i mean i have no idea it's not clear from the finding by the examiner that this was obvious or novel examiner did not find it to be anticipated or obvious based on the prior art however this court and the supreme court has been very clear both and to look and an affinity says that the fact that the claims add a degree of particularity and that case it was as to how an order is placed did not impact our analysis of step one it's nice to alter mercial that says something very similar although a certain additional limitations added degree of particularity the concept embodied by the majority of limitations described only the abstract idea i think that's exactly what we have here yes we may have a certain variation and just the and credit again but at bottom those are those are fundamental economic practices and they are abstract and once you move to step two all that's left are those  generic computer components and the board looked at them as individually and as a and as an ordered combination and determined ad that they did not were not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a p eligible invention if you don't have any further questions i'm happy to see the right ranger part of the time thank you very much isn't conventional and that the office has never been tested is not an invention again we're not even just relying on that we also would go a step further and say that you know we believe that these steps are actually inventive over the abstract idea itself there's at least some indication that the patent office may agree as the solicitor noted there is no rejection of this claim for novelty or non obviousness and not only that abstract idea that this result can't be what conveys the non obvious properties to this claim there has to be something left we would contend and we suggest and it's been our position the whole time that it's this non obvious or it's this unconventional seems like it's a simple innovation or a simple invention but it's not contested that it's unconventional it's not contested that it's not inventive we believe that that's an infinite concept