within the narrow set of patents eligible for c b s to review the pantie claims do not offer a financial product or service in any ordinary sense by their terms the claims manage inventory what is the what do you call the ordinary set just be in the banking area acting sphere in the financial institution the court has rejected that i do actually think that that is a more accurate description of the statutory term but will take the first sort of set which is its monetary matters and so a financial product or service has to be a product or service related to monetary matters and so if you look at the examples that this court has had where it has found a c b s review it looks nothing at all like the pattern in this case so if you look at blue calypso that had an actual economic subsidy it said there was financial assistance offered as part of the actual patent it claims if you look at sight sound it wasn't just that there was a sale it actually the claim reciting the movement of money it was a financial transaction was actually captured as part of the claim but what about that this claim includes ordering well in the ordering is different though than the actual purchase the ordering is part of managing the inventory and seeing when the inventories drop below a certain level but the actual purchasing between a payment system and order and this is simply basically developing matches between a customer and a potential supplier so how does the ordering inventory not involve a sale well it doesn't involve  financial product or service and no one thinks that no one thinks when you go to the grocery store to buy milk the grocery stores offer to buy natural that it is setting up an inventory ordering and also for providing the cost information necessary for the parties to make the their needs is entirely self directed if the customer decides that they care about costs then the patent includes cost as a factor if they just care about speed or quantity the main to say we don't care how much it costs we just want ten  eat everything that's going on here cost will cost but it's still it's still not we're going to a singer offering a financial product or service on a monetary product or service is simply managing the inventory levels in the inventive concept again was inserting this intermediate database structure so that you can have inventory tracked and you can have multiple manufacturers letting customers know how the quantity they have available and how soon they can deliver products in yes at what cost but it said that you did not think that having sales would be would be a financial service what legal support do you have well i think i think too to piece it all the two cases and i think in the one sufficient if you look to cite or sam that you said everybody knows or everybody agrees i want to know what your legal support is for that i'm sorry well that if i said that then then i mean i hope everyone will eventually grew that but i think if you look at this court's precedents the closest that this court e this court doesn't look to it so i don't think that actually matters even if you know it even if i might disagree with the rat the interpretation that the p t o has put on it and  that an ordinary sale isn't enough is that it can't possibly be true that when you go to the grocery store and buy milk you come out and say i do seem good the grocery store is offering a financial product and service they might think that if you offered a credit card and you were getting special financing for purchasing your groceries but in actual sale is not enough and again this court has never held to the contrary in sight sound the logic was tied directly to the concept that it was a specific financial transaction it in both the board's decision a page thirteen eleven which is reproduced in the that sentence reproduce in the opinion and if you look again to thirteen fifteen to thirteen sixteen it's pacifically is talking about charging a fee to the parties to count it again if the sale were enough they would have had to include that language and it was sales enough and all the pattern has to do is relate to a sale then it literally covers everything in the entire universe of economic activity if congress meant anything in commerce or business it had easier more familiar ways to say that instead chose this very distinctive concept of a financial product or service and media were sort of rejected the idea that this is tethered specifically to the banking industry but it accepted the notion that it involves monetary matters and those two things are perfectly consistent with each other you can have lots of energies that are not banks and they're not insurance companies they can be the grocery store this are for you a credit card offering you a credit card a special financing if you buy the groceries at that store you surely engaging in a financial product or s but this patent doesn't do that and again this is very critical the patent here does not even claim the sale the patent contemplates a sale it's one of the advantages is you can set it up so parties outside of the pack and can actually consummate a sale but it doesn't it necessarily relates to financial transactions because the financial transaction the actual sale the movement of money that's taking place outside the patent but this court already said that being incidental few uncomplimentary to finance like that he's not enough so the board basically made even if you i hope you brief me on on the actual reading an analysis of what a covered business method claims to give it some sort of narrowing scope says i capturing every transaction which we know congress didn't want to do but even if you disagree on that it's the board that has to come up and articulate with a reasoned rational basis for saying that this patent falls within its jurisdiction under the cvo program and the board here failed to do that the board simply we said that on a more precise and refined rationale as i think it would have to deal if you avoid again capturing every neighborhood lemonade stand no one sees a lemonade stand and would naturally come out and say the the kid on the corner is offering a matching the users with the manufacturers is entirely self directed the patent doesn't care you can put it in a black box and simply says what are the factors that you care about and they want to care about cost at all they might just care  something that is that is being driven by cost or a financial transaction it's part of the patent it doesn't collect money it doesn't move money it doesn't actually facilitate a direct sale it doesn't buy or sell the products even this is simply a  device for effectively serving as a matchmaker between users and manufacturers managing inventory automatically and dynamically and that is certainly a part and has a clear role and benefit from business and commerce but it is not a financial monetary product or a monetary service under any ordinary construction of those terms and if the court does find that it is it's very hard to come up with a limited principle that would separate this patent from the entire universe of commercial activity lesser for the questions thank you very much the statute is well as court's case law directs us to look at the claim so i would direct this court to appendix page eight of the final written decision where your honour's you've kind of already gotten into this i'd like to get into this in a little more detail claim one thousand is the representative claim that the board in allies for c b s eligibility to method for inventory management what they called out and specifically products inventory restocking printers now they didn't really enter lies the next step but it's important to look at the next step because my colleague on the other side kind of omitted this evaluating via at least one computer said customer inventory information inventory or cost information so that information is actually being utilized then the next step ordering inventory which best fulfill the inventory restocking parameters provided by the customer the last step of the word in allies is providing access via a client software to information in one or more databases to each said customer manufacturer supplier cetera so we have two things going on here your honour's number one there is management of a sales function which is inventory management and number two there's a management midgley of a sales function aren't by managing inventory for a company you're managing the sales function right you're keeping track of the inventory as it's being sold out the front door front door of the business is my example so as customers are coming into your store in there taking products off the shelves it's keeping track of how things are being sold cetera and there's also an actual sale which you alluded to yourself in your honor which is the ordering inventory step which is kind of the back door right so as this the products are coming out the front door the system is automatically ordering inventory from your suppliers that's necessarily a sale that's necessarily a sale and i think any definition of financial activity would include a sale in fact sites out as your honor did point to sites out does have that language allowing a sale was good enough and in versa there wasn't a sale i reviewed the claims a couple of days ago and all there was was determining a price for a product that was to be offered for sale in this claim claim nineteen we have that we have cost information and then in step f you have providing access to that information so you're using the cost information and with that the  other point is that there is actually a sale here which is ordering inventory now my colleague on the other side tries to distinguish between ordering and actually payment first of all i don't think that it would matter if you include a debit or an invoice i think that's certainly good enough and he cites to column eleven of the specification and just says that the h somehow there's some there's a sentence there that distinguishes between payment and sales i've looked at that my colleague on the other side on column yes your honor i believe it's forty seven to fifty one but i will find it myself yes forty seven to fifty one it says last as a server may further integrate with an automated payment system thereby limiting invoicing and other such expenses but my colleague on the other side doesn't provide any support for how that raises to the level of a disclaimer or some other limiting factor that would limit the claim scope and interestingly your honor in his very brief brief opening brief on page six is an admission on page six at the very bottom of my colleagues opening brief he says an overview of the basic process describes its core function colon and then at the top of seven now he's quoting from the specification when an appropriate distributer one twenty response is chosen comma server one hundred may automatically arrange payment and shipping a requested supplies for a customer in the choicest one third of it i think your view from on the other side would argue that what income eleven is a description of a system that automatically orders inventory holds at and then the customer can and then placed order against that that inventory hold your normal context of the word ordering from suppliers with whom you have a relationship you're saying give me more product and the payment step could be credit card which the specification contemplates it could be automatic with i just read t well first of all your honor i don't think that that rises to the level of being any kind of a disclaimer for the specification because the specification specifically talks about as i just pointed out this automatic payment so i would submit that first of all this language can't be used to contradict the claim language itself the claim language itself says bordering inventory that is a sale and i would further note that the next element after ordering thin inventory actually includes the language of tracking inventory items blah blah blah the number of items is immunologic as inventory items are added to restock too so admits that inventory cannot be restocked without some purchase here the claim specifically recites ordering inventory and contemplate sets restocked the order is a sale and it's consummated are there other contradict other payment methods for example your honor you pointed to the definition of customer and the definition of customer in the specification on column five a buyer of products by the present invention customers can have open account relationships to avoid credit card and c o d shipment problems so there are a whole host of different ways that  payment can be achieved but certainly ordering inventory from a distributor with whom you have a relationship and incurring an invoice or paying it forward outright is clearly  a financial activity i would also like to address my colleague on the other side's argument about the board applying the wrong theater this is not a case like enlargement in this case what happened was the appellant in participated below until they were ordered to do so by the p tab and in that phone call the judges asked for supplemental briefing specifically to address unwired planet in secure secure access which has since been think it by the supreme court the board specifically asked for supplemental briefing both parties engaged in it and then they came up with a reasoned decision on pages twelve through twenty one ten pages analysis in appendix twelve through twenty one that addresses the financial aspect as well as the technological invention exception now what i would note point to your honor is that my colleague on the other side points to some language by the board connection to and relates to but this is simply not a situation like unwired planet in unwi planet you had a situation where the board went from the statute to some policy statement by the by the p t o and then did the analysis here on pages fourteen to eighteen which is the meat of the analysis which i've already described to this court are a financial activity or financial in nature what the board then goes on to is basically say that the specification confirms the challenge claims connection to then they quote the  f the statutory language and then they go through the specification which describes in financial aspects as the present invention in fact if this court will look at the summary of the invention section of the patent that whole section is talking about financial aspects and it's couched in terms of the present invention and the board is acknowledging that at the bottom of sixteen and it's simply saying that the specification supports what we're seeing here and then that's necessary necessarily relates to language of the bottom of seventeen well your honor that's virtually indistinguishable from the quote from ver which the board has in the previous paragraph where it says the plain texas is on seventeen the plain text of the statutory definition contained in section eighteen v one ellipses on its face covers a wide range of financial finance related activities later on in the paragraph below it does equate ordering manufacture the ordering step necessary relates to and then it quotes the eighteen d one section of the statute and then it talks about cites to purchasing is a large part of inventory maintenance again from the specification acknowledging that there are sales going on with the invention but just to activity that is financial in nature financially major was adopted by this court and blue calypso as an accurate representation of what the statu information insights and you have a sale and the federal this court said that allowing a sale is sufficient here we have an actual sale so unless there are any other questions from this court we respectfully request for moments of the decision by thank you  finance a transaction are sales they do not provide for payment they do not require a payment system in view not determine a price so that clearly is a separate component of the true gauge when it is true it says that it can track items as a restock but again and it says we're persuaded by the petitioner not by the partner that is not engaging with the parties arguments that simply repeating what arguments were out there and saying that side wins that it four into the basic standards of a looking at the right way to price products that might fall closer to the heartland of a financial product and service here the cost information is taken in a black box by the manufacturers again this is not a pattern that tries to determine what the caution be or how you should use the cost any any input with cost or pricing or finance is entirely self directed by the users and the pattern of simply managing inventory and matching the customer the are with the manufacturers according to their own determined parameters so again i think that if the court determines that this is a financial product or service it would be very difficult to determine any product at all that is related to commerce or any economic transaction that would fall outside the definition and of congress meant to include every single pass and in a covered business but that passed and it certainly had a better way to write the statute than it that most or for the questions