i'd i got to stop you because i mean i don't think that what's at issue is whether or not he potentially invented something useful i think what's at issue is are these claims eligible in light of the enormous amount of precedent including electric power which i'm having trouble distinguishing these claims from this isn't a matter of do i think that the inventor and i think this technology contributed something useful to determined in fact because the claims were directed to a specific set of rules a specific implementation that was not the claims are different not directly we have to reconcile the crow with electric power probe and then specify many many other kids yes and so it seems like the most reasonable way to reconcile all of those cases is the same a crow was about improving a technological process in the sense that you now were able to synchronize the animated characters on the display with all of the sounds coming in and so what you did was you improve some technical process now we look back at cases like electric power group or a safety and then several others and then we say well ultimately the invention wasn't directed to an improve technological process or the functionality of a computer in any of those cases because in the end they were more just about collecting data and then analyzing that data and then displaying the results of that analysis and so if that's the way to understand all of our case law why doesn't your claims here which is about collecting data from medical claims and analyzing it to try to figure out how to score the relative efficiency of the doctor as being something more akin to the line of cases and things like electric power group p cetera et cetera et cetera a couple points one i think it's a dangerous road to travel down to to think that merely analyzing data developing algorithms and applying those  data from sensors all over a very large complex electrical power grid pole and then using all kinds of data analytics to produce essentially a score on the relative health and risk  of taking disparate sets of data and presenting them together is essentially what the claims were directed to it cleans cover for it were directed to that exact procedure i understand that there was a data analysis component of the claim to and the court recognized that and grappled with it and then ultimately said the types of analysis that are being engaged in the claim are essentially equivalent to perhaps the kinds of processes one would go through in their minds in terms of crunching down data to produce a score on the relative health of an electrical power grid yes so that itself was within the realm of abstract ideas i think there are two issues rolled up in what you just articulated one of them is that the claim the scope of the claim it's commensurate with the abstract idea to which the claims are directed number two is that the ideas that are that are represented in the claims are all conventional and while there was no indication of electrical power system from a group case that there were new inventive concepts there are non well known concepts and i think that is a very taking what was done by a human and started automating on a computer because of the record of the growth is that prior to this computerized system humans had to go in and kill all the information so we growed up with automating that process and it was new that was a new process that was not conventional well known and that's why i was determined to be patentable just like that in c c group what am i missing from your claims which is taking existing data from medical claims and then grouping them and applying some metrics to find out the score of the doctor there are is something from a missing something about that claim i think respectfully maybe looking at the two high level because to me it's it's it's like it's like if if i was an office manager and i had an hundred employees and they are all doing the same work and they're all working under a particular performance plan which is designed to motivate them to be as efficient as possible and then i design a new performance plan and i discover that my new performance plan with all these different factors in terms of how they performed on specific projects that they have and how they do on teamwork and all these other items leadership and all these other great things i've cracked the code and figured out exactly how to best motivate of these employees and so what i've done is created a performance plan that creates a higher performing office overall for would i be entitled to a patent on the well i think that the danger in that in that approach is that we're not looking at through the prism of the skill artist and i think it's easy to say oh gosh the seem simple and straightforward but the whole purpose of the developed and implemented was involved nine mentioned or non non well known approaches if it did and there's no reason you shouldn't be entitled to obtain a patent on that because you have developed something new not not just from a novelty perspective but the whole the whole apple of one to one is to avoid allowing someone to capture this adds these abstract ideas the fundamental building blocks and if you come up with something new that bucks the trend in the industry and in the scope of the scale artisan really did change something develop something new and devoted to the to the art then as long as you're not in compassing that entire abstract idea you should be entitled to get a p specific implementation of that new idea might my invention doesn't improve a computer in any way or any kind of technological process i mean even if i had a computer running and write oh i'm you know i'm i have all these different factors and this one's worth five percent this one's worth ten percent of the overall score and this one factor i'm going to combine it with this other factor and put some coefficient next to it and divide it by four and then i'm going to have a number for that particular factor and then i'm just going to have a computer running all of that but that couldn't be said to be improving the computer improving some technological process with it i don't know enough about that fact pattern to say whether it  technological process or not i would say that in this case c c groups invention doesn't prove a technological process because it improves methodologies by which you develop position efficiency scores that there is an industry built around a value in physician efficiency how  do it and he he has claims he teaches these fundamental problems articulates ten of them and then basing his experience has developed solutions to those problems and the claims that he is that he is obtained trapped those specific solutions with a particular process for addressing those problems to achieve those solutions and that is all in the context of a technological approach because he is developing his efficiency score in th industry for physician efficiency scoring and it's not as simple as saying steve's doing a better job than joe is on filling out spreadsheets it's very complex and that's why looking through the prism still artisan is important here  respect i don't think it's appropriate for anyone here because we're not skilled artist it's to say whether or not the process the specific process which in this very specific in the claims of the specific process is conventional well known it's easy to abstract that out to step away from it and say oh it's just analyzing data but does not i mean credence to the significant amount of work and the complexity that goes into this industry and i think that's the real risk and i think that's also what distinguishes u within that process are not conventional well known and although i recognize there's a question of whether the true record is even a political here but in the truman case both experts agreed no one had done this before it was not conventional well known i not even been publicized so we're doing something that's very new that is not conventional well known and improves the technological process because we're dealing with a highly technical field involving physician efficiency scoring  we believe that the district court's conclusion was correct the claims in this case claims thirteen and twenty of this of the ninety one patent were directed to an abstract concept that of determining position efficiency that is how efficiently did him a person or employee do his or her job as the court has already noted the claims here fall into a class of claims with which the court is already very familiar claims directed to data collection processing and generating an output  result those types of claims are not directed to technology this court has repeatedly held that claims of this type don't pass alice stuff while claims here suffer from an additional problem and that is that they're written in very functional and result oriented language that makes them even more abstract well it was entirely proper for the district court to dismiss the complaint at the early say that if cave consulting claims the method of scoring doctors that were engaged in four hundred steps you know really detailing the operations the processes are going to cajun to ultimately arrive at the final score step four hundred then that would be pat knowledgeable what i'm saying is in this case the claims that really we had two issues one is that the claims were written in result oriented language and i'm happy to take the court to that and i  i'm giving you a hypothetical ok you're saying a four hundred step claim for scoring a doctor well i mean under alice claims need to contribute to some form of technology is it especially in the in the context of patent claim directed to a computer is there an improvement in computer technology or other technology to me there's a there seems to be a division in the cases and patents that are not directed to an advancement in computer technology or some other form of technology don't seem to pass muster under alice well to a sense four hundred step example might come a little closer to mick roe than this case because micro also focused on the specificity of what was being claimed and one of your arguments distinguishing it grow as i understand it is the broad functional claiming issue in this case right so that is i'm not suggesting that if there were four hundred steps it would necessarily just be like micro but it  secularization of voice and video so i think that's another distinction in any event here are not just laws it's a little confusing is it not in that everything that requires a computer to engage in a series of operations can be said to be in a technical field and so now what we have created is a world where we divide those types of inventions into two buckets one in which we say well all those operations are all timidly for improving some technical function maybe being able to store data more efficiently or compressing data more efficiently versus another kind of set of operations which are maybe the kinds that are happening here trying to figure out whether one doctor is more valuable than another or maybe whether there's a problem with an electrical power grid or maybe trying to predict when there's going to be an earthquake i mean all of those we've got a computer doing a series of computations just like there's a series of computations going on in the data compression and data storage inventions but where's we seem to be saying one set is patton eligible and the other do you see the confusion there i understand your point your honor it's true that computers have used in all of those examples the cases do seem to make a division and the  evaluating whether there's risk in a financial transaction things like that tend to fall in the bucket of being abstract it's an abstract concept here what about a a claim a method claim for diagnosing when is there going to be  a team of ph d students figured out how to take existing data measuring you know what's going on underground and they've come up with some really complex math algorithms and now they can figure out there's going to be an earthquake and at least an eight point zero earthquake where the epicenter is going to be right under barstow in eight days that's a pretty valuable thing to figure the analytics metrics taking the data analyzing that data and coming up with basically a prediction score i think under the existing case law that may be useful it may be novel i don't i'm not so sure that it would be patented eligible it's two different things and i actually i think the cape confuses those two things here they say well you know what we did here was unconventional i want  hypo as a case to go find it because maybe the supreme court would actually rule that something was eligible and we'd have a bookend well that maybe you know i understand i understand the difficulty in resolving an issue like this i mean yes computers are involved in all of these things but you know in going back and reading the cases there does seem to be a division that's you know right from the supreme court that there's a line being drawn between what the court considers technology and just merely data processing machine if it would be fair to suggest that really all of that comes down to what the supreme court hasn't pressley said this way but i can understand it this way in my own thinking if the thing that's really novel if the thing you really invented is the abstract part you can't get a patent on it and so in judge jones example the abstract par would be th particular algorithm for analyzing the data that allows you to accurately predict earthquakes that's really not much different than a formula and if any general purpose computer could do this it's not eligible i think that's reward and of the fans i hope they're working on it but you know it takes argument here really confuses novelty with unconventionality that the the things that they say were the breakthrough in what they claim are that they select particular data for these episodes of care they say they selected in a way that was different from what had been done before and they say that that is going claim thirteen part of it that's not calculating the statistics on episodes of care for all treatments all medical conditions they only pick certain ones for the case law tells us that just you know selecting particular data doesn't take a patent claim out of the abstract it may or may not have been novel and will dispute its novelty their argument really is that it's it's not up that doesn't make it unconventional and that's really what that's really what i think they say and really what they are doing here are things that are all really had been done before they just they will select the date a little bit differently and admits in the past medical claims data was group did episodes of care and then sick unit of measure of you know how much service was provided to treat a particular condition and then we're going to use a computer to use the episodes of care for doctors to figure out how efficient the person what's i mean that's all that's all history when this patent came along so they say well you know we pick the data a little bit differently and it refines our or our results it makes our results more accurate but that doesn't take it out of out of the abstract  yeah but even things that have aren't even claims directly to an abstract idea can survive alexander step two they could but i don't think that they should in this case i mean when you look at the claims and i'm looking specifically claim thirteen right now appendix page one fifty seven column two starting at one fifty eight we have a method implemented implemented on a computer system of terming physician efficiency and i'm not going to read the whole claim to you but i do want to hit a few of the elements to make a point first step obtaining medical claims data stored in  computer readable media ok then performing patient analysis using said obtain medical claims data to form episodes of care doesn't tell us how to form the episodes of care performing an output process based on perform patient analysis utilizing the computer system at the sub step assigning episodes of care to physicians doesn't tell us how that's a result assigning at least one of this issue to a report group utilizing the computer system that's a result  probably would but i think this is a separate basis for why they also aren't you know which will under step two i mean when you get to the final step it's determining efficiency scores for physicians from basically two pieces of data doesn't tell you how to do it just tells you that needs to be done  finally you know kate argue somehow that the allegations in this complaint in a secular declaration preclude dismissal we don't think that they do as a general matter it's completely appropriate for a motion to dismiss on want to one grounds really the issue here is whether the claims themselves satisfy want to one and there's nothing about the complaint or the expert declaration that can change two things about the claims one is that they're directed to th abstract concept of determining someone's efficiency in doing his or her job and so they fall into this category of claims directed to data collection processing and output where the computer is just a tool the computer is not part of the innovation the other thing is the claims are written in this functional result oriented language that i just reviewed with you and that doesn't transform the claims in the patent will subject matter fact i'd say it makes them even more abstract so here the court made a determination that the claims didn't satisfy section one hundred one as a matter of law by looking at the patent alone and that's what we asked this court to do is to affirm the decision of the district court on the basis of the pattern itself when you were reading  well there is case law that says that even a couple of novel elocution search having certain novel elements doesn't save a claim from being abstract in other words a novel abstract ideas that are opposed to go if it is it is i mean these how these other elements make it abstract the presence of a couple of elements even if the new  doesn't doesn't transform expla sixteen i think those two principles answer your questions i guess the idea is if the alleged unconventionality lies in the realm of abstract ideas and that's not the kind of unconventionality that can establish an inventive concept under thank you i would like to start by addressing the claim language and i take issue with that with the representation that it's functional these claims are very specific government steps that are performed you take in medical claims data you use an absolute of care based methodology groups to compare physicians and then calculate statistics for individual medical conditions broken arms broken legs broken collar bones you then calculate statistics across medical conditions specifically so you can with aggregate efficiency information about a particular physician and you do all of this using predefined sets of medical conditions person actual type these are not functional these are specific process claims that that are distinguish other processes for calculating physician efficiency so it's wrong to say this is functional there are very specific steps here and those steps by the way align directly with what the specification teaches needs to be improved in the  art to electrical power says two things that i think are very relevant here one of them they discuss which left power from other cases saying the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information something we have here or new technique techniques for analyzing it something we have here that case goes on to say as a result the claims are not required arguably inventive set of components or methods which we do articulate here such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate is different because it didn't teach something more like everything is conventional here there is more wrong for us non skilled artisans to assess that that's why burr congress says we need to go look at the facts and  determine whether skilled artisans believe there's something more than the mere abstract idea if we look the only way this approach has any legitimacy is if i maintain the same abstract idea for step one step to the abstract idea articulated by the court is a method for determining physician efficiency by obtaining medical claims data analyzing the data assigning the data and calculating statistics the specific steps in these claims is far beyond what the actual idea is it's articulated there is  and well now what about in a case like s a p where the purported improvement in analyzing and forecasting investments with some new kind of data analysis some kind of new math and that claim went down and we said well all of your purported new data analysis is an improvement in  abstract ideas so therefore that's not an inventive concept as even if we accept for purposes of this appeal that there is something unconventional about your data analysis the question is whether that something non conventional is materially more than the abstract idea self and if we look at the district articulation of the opportunity it is inescapable that the claimant ations articulate something more to deny papped ability for these important innovations people really miss trade secrets and that's exactly opposite the entire purpose of the patent law so we need to find a mechanism a way to encourage inventors to train protection