thank you and i'm like to kind of refocus the argument here as you say i'm not trying to be repetitive i know what the allison creed gets into is do you have an abstract idea and if you do you have to have something more and i know there's disputes in the cases that talk about is this something more is it inventive is that a want to one of three analysis certainly if it is in this case because of what happened in the first case i submitted a declaration of an expert explaining the improvements in the technology to the district court so we did that we went through in the complaint and did a one hundred two one three analysis because at the time we weren't sure what th i think if you go back and you look at mail what the supreme court said was if you have an abstract idea doing it on a generic computer because of its ubiquity isn't enough to make it eligible and in the ultimate case when it went back up it sorry the basis for that is are you trying to claim the abstract idea i want analogize it this way even if generic computers weren't in the prior art if the only way to practice the abstract ideas on a computer you're sensually giving a monopoly i'm sure giving for your preempting the use of the abstract idea that's the only way i can i can reconcile those cases so whatever inventive concept is here it inventive concept is one of two one of three  mayo does say there you know they overlap of it in this case i have an expert in addition to the statements in the patent explain to the court the novelty it's not an explained that he was in the industry at the time and there was nothing that existed at the time anything like this i mean again this company was created because there were companies out there is here's my problem with that i mean we're talking about septa you know so we're so mean this i direct and to no abstract idea i know you disagree with it but and this is where i have a really hard time finding the life if you have an abstract idea and you do it on a computer it's not eligible you have an abstract idea that involves multiple computers because that's the whole point but how does that make it eligible i mean a lot of these cases we've had where there is abstract ideas out of your dear leader and eligible why isn't this case exactly the same thing it's an abstract idea of doing a bunch of different tasks in a really efficient way and maybe you couldn't do it with a mainframe or you can do it with one computer but you put a bunch of computer and you can you can now do it by the virtue of having a bunch of computing power the way i would answer that uses it's not just putting a bunch of computers together it's the fabric it's the programming that my client invent that's implemented on all those computers but this again i mean i don't want to you know beat a dead horse this is where i think that we have a problem and maybe the problem is this didn't use the remark that maybe now  it goes through and this is supported by dr green's declaration if you look at para fifty seven computers are capable of processing information a distributed manner that are not covered by this sort of claim so there's there's other ways you can do it and it brings up the seti at home and reliability for mission critical computing it talks about the prayer and he said that paragraph three for each of these early claims is rooted in computing technology in order to overcome these problems so identifies the problems he says they overcome the problems and improve the in response to state information analysis indicating that a processing task remains for the process flow and it goes it's receiving state information that is what is eight enabling these computers to work together what state information state information is information its describes with respect to the the the state of the task being performed it's not simply an on off date like and in general computing terms it's what's going on with this task where you had and processing this task it's the status of the task it's the status of when it's being shared and again this is the functionality this isn't this isn't an application program where you plug this in and it does a task what this does is it receives all these computers working together as as one computer receive an application program take that task break it up into smaller tasks which is in the claims and then processes that information in the most efficient way based on the resources it has available and the key here is the goal remember the goal was to use commodity boxes hardware and enable them to work together to get more power and redundancy like what you just said is a fair description of the advance and yes your honor and then how is that not abstract what you just difference is in the seti system if the dependent computer broke down the seti master computer didn't have the ability to even know that or to know that it should step in and do that task here what was created was a group of computers together that  that can no constantly what's going on with each other so that if any one of them has to step up and do something it can do that and that's described in detail in the flow chart in the specification is a scribe in detail in the specification and we have to look at the written descriptions to know what the claims talks about that's the problem but if one computer falls out and then within the specification it talks about exchanging state formation it also talks about primary and secondary computers  court once again a lot of what we just heard about the description of the system nearly all of it none of it's found in the claim language and that's obviously what we have to work with and judges i'd like to follow up on your questions that seem very bascom related coming back to that once more as your honor knows the bascom decision itself calls it a close call and i don't even think that the apple tree claims are close enough to be a close enough close call that what we've got here as we've heard is something that is not unconventional how to the specification identifies that unix or clusters and unix servers and unix network computers operated together as well that's exactly what we've just heard two computers networked together conventional hardware conventional network this is not the condition of the house and where someone is moving the filtering device to a different location separate from where the prior art was separate from where the general view of how it should operate functioned there's nothing unconventional about what we've just heard described and so in that respect i don't think the bascom a safe harbor at all in fact we're back to the other cases we've talked about before where we've got general purpose computers trying to implement nothing more than abstract concepts and so in that respect these claims do not meet the bands contest and was there any other locate now six additional allegations in the complaint and a p p x one three five n one three six where it's specific lee discusses the seti at home computer and how the new system is better than that and why and it findings that say what we're doing is routine and conventional didn't cite anything to the record and instead was really caught up in the fact that we use commodity or generic computers to make the invention what's miss there is that's the whole purpose of the invention to use you know computers and amuse them with the capability to work together in a seamless fashion so that a p c or a small computer was able to provide the power that a big computer would have in addition if you had a unix computer and the things that were in the past and distribute supercomputers you still had the employ programmers who could be familiar with those particular computer so that when they wrote application programs they could do it in this case the district court found routine and conventional and the second district court case that the first one found routine a commission of the second said were performing generic computer functions using generic computers the evidence was undisputed that as alleged in the complaint a specific single generic computer couldn't do it on its own when we combine all these computers together it still wouldn't work unless you make each of those improper for the district court looking at the specification to make findings contrary to the specification at the twelve b stage it's improper for the district court to ignore the the the that the ration of the expert where he goes through and explains why this is invented and what didn't exist at the time there just simply wasn't a system back in two thousand and two that did this with generic computers with commodity computers the last thing i'd say is that the district court didn't even cite to or analyze the end fish case or some of the other cases that specifically discussed if you takes off running new computer imbue it with new functionality that's not an abstract idea if it is it can be  invent and what i'd suggest in this case is that the twelve be six stage the fact that there's no evidence of record that does what my client claims in the patent and discloses in the patent as improper to dismiss