say the court granted summary judgment on september thirtieth two thousand and seventeen and nearly five months later issued a written order on february twenty second once of course relevance of that so this particular claim construction hearing la about four days three days and then another day and it was very lengthy and there was a lot of discussion of trying to explain the technology and that additional time is significant to the understanding perhaps  opinion was draft or how it came out oh i think it was just a misunderstanding largely of how the technology operated over and over and over again that well it does operate over and over and over and certainly your honor in the invention it yes  win the term means it's not present they have to address this rebuttable presumption that it was not intended to be means and as a part of that test the court has to consider how these terms are used in the industry and whether or not they have a meaning for structure where did the court conclude that random number generation was not well known in the record i would i would say every director o on page twenty seven of the blue the court erred by concluding random number generation was not well known and that the process for translating generated random numbers and random selections was not both well known standard where did he say bowler correct you know where did he say that it was not well known in his claim construction for this particular term ok he says that tell me sure  there's an extensive record here so give us a moment i'm sorry under six volumes so give us a minute when you tell us w where looks at the prosecution history and in it when the examiner says notional non visible in a real i understand that to be a random number generator in a lookup the court says this is to say that notional non visible in a real cannot simply represent the use of a random number generator with a look up table to randomly select symbols and that's exactly know  well i think that sentence says that it can't be just a random number generator because it has to be something more it can't simply represent the use of this random number generator look up there and he wants something more i guess we're talking past each other but unfortunately for you when you talk asked me it doesn't help you understand what you're on i'd point you to also page nine and next page nine lines ten through twelve where it says a game developer would need to know the specific requirements of the game to determine which random number generators would properly serve the needs of the game ok and how does that say random number number generation is not well known so again it seems to say the opposite to me the court is saying random jet number generation is well known but you need to do this the use of the random number generator and says you have to tell me the specific process that you use random number generation and he will require an algorithm or a specific algorithm to be recited and then the experts testified that random number generation so i needed that line  i think he said a lot more defines the different sections so it's got a sections of six symbols and a section of what they call a consecutive run of identical symbols and it picks or selects this identical symbol and inserts it into that consecutive run each game the game of this was the structure of the real in the fact that you had these defined sections where every game you get a new real you get a new set of symbols and what that led to was trying to  attract or keep the player attention during the game because the symbols are changing so the first game you might have a consecutive real of aces and then that would generate a lot of excitement in the next game you have nine and then kingdoms and then wil met that you're talking about well what and they found in them but it came down and so on and these are the rules of the game so the rule of the slot machine game with would be if you promise to pay out ninety eight point seven percent you have to set me thinking that ninety eight point seven percent correct but this is something different them than a game rules absolutely methodology and in this instance it's a way of convincing the player know what i said was that that it interests them in the game and so on i'm not saying or being no no when i put it that i think that is that is a aspect of it but i think the ability to maintain that ninety eight point six payout while simultaneously giving various different symbols that are selected each game that is a game math improvement and in the improvement to the game but it's not a game role correct i don't believe that it is and i think in is distinguishable because that was all about in the you know the score said that that was an economic fundamental principle of determining wagers and you know resolving the bets that's not what these claims are directed towards if you had to i it very much i think i don't believe they have a lot to say about it instead of what i've just heard but let me say this if i may first of all i want to know what this court to understand this is not a large swath of patents in the gaming industry would you agree this is not about rules it's partially about rules what's the rule there's a consecutive one of them is that there is a consecutive string of are identical would happen how would it be the rules of the game well that's one of the rules of the game is that there's a substitution that takes place in that consecutive string during the playing of the game which is of course an ultimate outcome of the game as i understand pushes the button on these electronic ones and instantly the machine knows decides based on an algorithm whether they want to last that's correct and then right away it's simply showing plus function well it's both it's a rule it's an ultimate outcome in that it's it's to the extent that the rule which mystery you know she me invented supposedly is the case where it's just the not and wish list of what would appear at the ultimate the interface to the user those are the rules the rules being what what is it going to look like to the user when they play this game being the ultimate outcome of the game which is what's claimed and you can't do that unless you teach an algorithm according to aristocrat and many other cases like the one and follows directly from world williams in our view they didn't tell you what they were doing that's right that doesn't tell you they did that's the point we really want to completely that point but they did is they have a very very high level concepts it's not implemented in the that's right that's where all your your adversaries argument is everybody in this industry understands what the structural pieces of a slot machine are a control of this that and these were right in terms of their all structure machine structure clean into me function if i reset structure in the claim sufficient to perform the function but if i claim a function of the machine and that means that function is not routinely done by a well known structure structure right and would be sufficient to identify everything that's in that automobile but we're not talking about a lot of it we're here we're talking about a computer a general purpose computer and this court's law is well established that once were to a is that the real it's not like a mechanical device it isn't the reals can just be the result of one generation that's right and in effect they may well  being generated differently and that's not necessarily true i just read what they could always that they could be or they are happy the manufacturers all manufacturers do their own programming nobody copies anybody else i can't a step one number one is the game real issues that you were addressing but number two there's a line of cases apple v amaranth etc that hold that when a claim is directed to functionality functional claiming without a specific set of caught a concrete implementation of that functionality that also invokes the abstract idea alice step one problem so whether you conceptualize it as a game rule issue or functional claiming issue here moreover i will note that under alice conventional generic computing complements are not enough to elevate an abstract idea to patent recently reaffirmed and the gold in our case which came down in december after the briefing was complete that's nine eleven that third one one five seven and that was a dice game and nothing in that tended matter printed matter has direct nothing in that you suggested that the game roll concept was tied to regulations everything in those cases indicates that when you're talking about patents that are directed to rules for a game we're talking about the rules for how the game is played what the game is at an abstract conceptual level and i think the import of those holdings is that if all you're claiming is how to play a game in a very high level an abstract sense that's an abstract idea and if you want to patent on that you have to take it to the next step you have to talk about a particular technological implementation of that game here we don't have that these patents are really hollow shells that are directed to the game features in the game functionality without any concrete way of implementing the game and that's a problem with both from one twelve and one hundred one it's similar similar set of issues the other the slot machines have details about how the game is going to be implemented that needs to be the invention that's being claimed for patent and ability merely to say that if you and it starts at line twenty on page nine hundred nine through page line seven on page ten in the reason this was cited for a random number generators not well known is what this court did is on the ten he says that random number generator requires a process and then you have to do something with the output of that process and it's not a standard part of these game developer kit which at that time it was  it goes on to say that this process is not a standard algorithm or set of programming associated with a generic processor or game controller in arps a fission to this is because that is a random number generators were standard they had skin algorithms at that time and they were widely known and you just and this passage demonstrates the confusion as to what was necessary in the clay wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait what the turn this large number into a random selection that would compress that number in a random selection within the range of positions on each real close quote that's your expert testifying is it not yes or he said that's not a part of standard part of a run random number generators program is that correct he does say that yes no is that correct that it's not just in it i mean random number generators are used in decoding intelligent all over all kinds of things yes that's not a standard part is the standard part is turning it into a slot action in the slot machine that is correct that would not be a standard random number dinner and that's why this court got it wrong because it was requiring so much more on a term of notional non visible in a real or the term randomly select in the later patterns random number generator doesn't appear anywhere and you know to address some of this means what function analysis to go along with it one of the problems in this opinion is they talk about williamson in the court cites to a passage of williamson as the standard and actually drop out the word term so the course said and this is  appendix ph twelve line sixty eight in talking about the presumption in the court says all he's got to find is that the claim fails to recite sufficient structure as opposed to a clean term that fails to recite sufficient structure hi five  advocated to this court that and as we heard earlier if you have a function in a claim it means plus unction in this particular case konami sets forth processor a well known structure game controller well known structure in this industry there were eight hundred thousand devices on the floor and for all of those reasons these elements are being used for their well known purpose processor processor to execute again a display device to display this isn't