of the results of the analysis full stop nice information is that i mean how is that not squarely in the abstract anyway it doesn't even say what you do with the information user defined parameters and user defined queries are posed to the system so it begins with the simply the user deciding the conditions under which the modeling is going to take place and then you have the creation of the sample space data gets that gets produced are bad or at least not good enough and what you're doing is coming up with a better set of assumptions and say but those assumptions into a computer and you get a better result at because it allows you to set the bias parameter and it is set in sample selection it's not in creating the sample space but it is actually tells you pick more of calculations statistical measures or algebraic combinations in fact it is about the degree of randomness in sample selection that the user sense so once the user sets then the user can see how these particular investments will perform and even more important in front of the process requires that you maintain the temporal correlation between investments so that you can more accurately predict what is going to happen more investments so all of these elements are designed to claim a very specific method with very specific limitations so the vice prime interest is is basically a construct and it's it's designed to set the parameters for the analysis it's very similar to for example knowing where the artery wise and the trading technology is it was the creation of a particular kind of visual display that what kind of a raid two different kinds of information next basically fetch unload data and put them in put them in registers and then you basically create additional data east on the data that exists so it's it by itself it's a physical process in addition  my only point here is that we also have physical processes going on here with three sampling and we also have a meaningful output for say maximum drawdown  sample them across multiple days and you've determined how many of up downs and down based a sample based on the vice premier then you basically physically make multiple copies of that data maintaining that temporal correlation between the stocks so that that way you know how the stocks relate beach other and also how they relate within each other and that's your cross correlation autocorrelation this is to make sure that you actually have captured how they relate to each other because you might think you've got a diversified investment but you actually don't and so you keep the temporal correlation and then you make most agree sampling is not new and factory sampling across a series of stock transactions is not and in addition we try to trigger this with user input and provide the output in a form so that the user can perhaps redo the analysis again and change the conditions that they want so that there is an accurate prediction of how the portfolio will perform under the kinds of conditions that the user is interested in model so here our key point is that there are critical claim limitations that should have been taken into account by the district court and if they had taken it into into account they would realize that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea in addition what the two nine one pattern doesn't is it comes up with a computerized system where this method if we have a lot of data how we can efficiently their computer components if you look at all the components that are added like parallel processors in some of the other components they're all generic there's nothing in the specification that says not the winds and opponents have not otherwise said that this these are specific components there is something unique about them or something invented about them this case is not the scene which will from fluke the district court recognize that on page sixteen of their opinion in both cases in fluke and in this case you have a mathematical algorithm and you have a result in fluke you a mathematical algorithm related to setting an alarm limit and the result was a very alarming that that was sat here you have a mathematical algorithm and the result is a distribution plot so for that reason this idea maybe non obvious but that does not affect the analysis when it comes to determining whether the abstract idea is indeed abstract and because the abstract idea is not according to got shot it is abstract so what in terms of what was held in our per case as to why it was an obvious are you saying that the only thing they said was non obvious was the choice of a data input it's a combination they said what w math that is the only thing that was alleged to be not obvious and that is that is not a proper determination when determining whether the map is an abstract idea so your response to your friend on the other side is that of his argument that is really sampling that was was unique and different doesn't matter it doesn't matter in the district court the sumed that it would be the district court said even if it is new and unique that does not control when determining whether whether  isn't that almost the that's the european word for non obvious so you cannot look at whether the abstract idea is inventive you need to look at what was added to the abstract idea alice dictates that in this case that argument w never made that said the district court did go that step further the district court applied allostatic line determined this is all mathematical manipulation and formulas and that that was abstract and the district court stepped through each and every deep end to claim each and every additional limitation and found that all of those additional limitations were either generic computer components like processors or they were in significant pre and post activity but why isn't the you know  conference of the circle is abstract it's two pyaar and basically what you would be saying is because r is an input to that if you choose our one way and you put our into the formula now somehow because you combined a way of it would be fair to say i would say yes in the sense that if you're using probability distributions to mimic behavior in the market or any other behavior that is not an eligible i mean if you look at if you look at the pattern it talks about the bell curve which is used all over the place it's used to estimate intelligence it used to estimate height you can't patent that formula just the same way you can't patent the formulas in this path and yes a lot of those can be used to model financial markets you can use the the gaps in normal distribution to model financial markets that doesn't make it patentable just because the financial market the data happens to fall in a certain curve what about the distribution is in her every invention ultimately mathematical in the long run i mean and how it is that overlay of math at the end of the inquiry you know the overlay of math would be one thing this is only now if there was what the supreme court said was if you assume that that mathematical equation is in the prior art there's nothing else left that's what the supreme court said that is not what is going on here there is no mathematical expressions in the claims what we have here is the particular matter of trying to get around some prior limitations and probabilities from the biased parameter you combine both of those approaches in a very specific method so we're not talking about high level combining of frequent dissidence and we're talking about doing so in  a very specific way of doing you're honest the district court did not even consider cite or refer to this court's decision in twenty six feet so it simply did not  engage with the claim limitations at any it simply said this is an abstract method of manipulating data and your honor we did in