united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and th machine at home is an abstract idea no i'm saying that the claims here are so broad because they capture any kind of washing machine so the washing machine at home the washing machine that is being used to watch which you just touched on because it's conventional but the other one is even if it were not conventionally abstract it's just the process of washing something by which is an abstract concept and steps to do nothing more than spell out the abstract idea wash and if that is the claim construction then i'm not sure that there's a difference between the parties about that why is the claim definite i think this got a little bit confusing the specification also identifies various objects various objects as an invention including washing affectively words for less quantities of liquid the particle size limitation must therefore be interpreted to promote these objects into an objective boundary with which to answer your question but isn't the burden on you to show that someone skilled in the art couldn't figure  but there has to be this is a new question presented this is a new interpretation presented on appeal for the st time and that's why there's no actual evidence interpretive again because this was not a theory that  the other side says that if the particle limited a particle size limitation that's indefinite and they say that it can't mean what it means as a matter of plain language and other words that there are particles that are within that quite precise range because that would not practice the invention that would not affect the way in efficiently clean the engine and the that is built into the method as your honor's question recognizes the reason that the other side's indefiniteness argument is wrong is that it focuses on how many particles meet the particle size limitation while ignoring the efficiently clean the engine part of the claim so yes we agree that that's the right way to look at the method that is what was proved at trial with the testing that our expert did demonstrating that it's not just that range i think is one of the court's questions recognized this was not a disputed issue at trial because the parties had not raised it and indefiniteness challenge to this  at the time of trial so the experts were not asked to specifically opine about the definiteness of the particle size limitation but the district court recognized that at trial the experts were able to apply the particle size limitation divided i do want to respond to the to my friend's point that this is a quote unquote new construction we've always taken the position that within the range of two hundred and fifty to one hundred and twenty micro meters means what hypothetical but the point that i think they missed and that is consistent in our construction from the from the very beginning is that to practice the invention you have to practice all of it limitations the invention not just the particle size limitation and that includes being finally divided to a degree at which the particles of liquid will follow the same route through the turbine compressor as those previously taken by the contaminants and that is demonstrated not only by our experts testimony  it doesn't even preempt the idea of washing turbine engine according to its type because after all this is an automated process and that was that is what differentiated this process from what came for the parameters that are specific to an engine and engine type to actually control the operation of the system and i think i would refer the course in particular to the discussion seven starting at line twelve discussing how the control unit directs the opening of one or more valves and then later on in that paragraph is configured to regulate a washing time for the particular engine being washed and that washing mcgrew because it is an automation of something that was previously done by people it is the automation solves a particular problem and i think that's discussed both in the s relating to human error in this field and by that i mean the fact that aircraft engines are being watched by individuals often late at night often in the dark and that automation  dealt with dealt with that problem by avoiding human error it also adds a degree of precision that makes possible the types of measurement of value metric for that  this type of automation in this field and i think that's what that's what separates it also is what demonstrates that the other side's formulation that this is the idea of washing an engine according to its type that's not what these claims are directed to because of the automation element i mean my client has done watches that are operator directed rather than controlled by a control unit automating it and giving control of particular variables including time to the control unit so that the so that the watch doesn't go on too long it doesn't rest on kind of human estimation and to an humans were capable of performing at least at some lesser level of precision and you have prior cases that have said that automating to perform manually before don't become eligible just because the computer does it more efficiently or more quickly and it seems to have a problem in the sense that avoiding human error similar which you know which does so more more efficiently this is something different because it is an actual application of technology before before this which was done entirely manually before this pat the process is automated in other words whether the rules set out in the in the pattern and the claims provide enough detail and the challengers are always going to argue that nd that is why the claims were framed in a greater level of generality but that was entirely appropriate in that context we think the same is true here again because this is not an attempt to preempt the abstract idea of something according to its type it is specific to engine type it is also specific to the type of washing parameters that are appropriate in this art as i mentioned claim not a specific the time but the specification of some other details about how the control unit takes control of the washing this context case because a just i've asked my friend whether the whether the facts were in dispute i think it's important to know that that this is not a case in which the section one hundred and one issue was submitted to the jury to do open the valves when they're watching an engine but it's the it's the precision of being able to do to open the valves simultaneously if necessary if there's if there's more than one and also to do so for a very precise time with which a human operator is not necessarily going to be able to do and of course it also ensures that because it's based on the information detector having correctly ascertained the engine type it's not going to be done incorrectly by a human operator that that's gone and gotten a manifold out of out of the shed and i connected to connected it to the engine  type the words a manual operator might might know the information about what what the appropriate parameters for a particular type of engine are that's correct if they had it on a on a wall cars or something they could they could do that but they have to they have to take the right part out and they have to follow the directions and they have to do so their humans are not going to do so with the same degree of  that show asked to give a range of parts of the jury have enough information to conclude based on that what this really means is that the range of particle sizes doesn't really matter so long as you have enough to wash you in french and need for specific parameters they don't matter they mean whatever is required to evolve the gas at that can't be the correct construction of this claim is following the gas path is actually a ok anything further i think we're probably out of time i have no nothing else and if you have any further questions your honor hearing the arguments conclude the case is submitted we thank both council