component within the school readable element in a photograph and using the machine image processing or other photographs with the clean technology is a specific concrete technical think it may be that the district court characterization of the abstract idea is broader than the claimed invention but why isn't the abstract idea still just organizing photos with a divider so the limitation i would be adding to the district court's abstract idea is just the use of a divider which is the coded component for example so what why isn't that still nonetheless an abstract idea examples of ways of sorting photos that don't infringe the claims if they specifically require a code or component that comprises a machine readable element that's a physical concrete element it's  an advance is that nothing like it mr khalidi that previously when you when you talk about a code a component are you talking about something like a bar code or are really an alphanumeric string things that already existed as codes and identifiers and label and that would be things like bar codes or a string of letters and numbers that can be nine refers to one data to the barcode off in america strings a color code it has to be designed for a data processing system to be able to recognize and i don't think computers of the day were able to recognize how many fingers you're holding  say that obviously existed because to invent a better mousetrap using existing materials in any way you don't have to come up with new wood or a new way of bending wire to assemble them in a way that was only novel but well within the that's not abstract is that in the claims like claim one i don't think like that taking at least a st photograph of a coded component using a handheld camera the coded what makes this different from what came before previous solutions required a separate record keeping system and the solution that snappy these inventor came up with was to insert barcode scanner say if you're using a park so they had to also come up with the idea of using photographic image processing to locate identify and sort the photographs according to be coded components with its machine readable element in the photo itself so improvement there where is your technological improvement it is betting that code a component in the photograph with this machine readable on it and then coming up with a machine image lot do they organize everything i would imagine when i go check out and i'm doing the show checkout and i run something through the barcode reader something that says this is a vegetable or this is a meat product or a separate film management system or shot counter or other way of identifying which set of photos you're taking it's now embedded within a photograph of the set of  components into the device is part of just improvement so if that's if i'm understanding your argument right column seven is the result right take a business card with an invented component already it isn't containing a machine readable element it seems to me it would and that's where i have grave concerns about the preemption risk and in your argument but  cohen discussed with the court and for which the court ask questions and i will take the machine readable element st only because that's the question and the discussion we ended on so judge chin asked a question about using a bar human readable now the machine readable component is the one structure that snappy are asserts as adding the inventive concept to the invention but there's nothing in the specification or the  forty of the patent and that's the discussion of the machine readable element and what it can be the code component is said to comprise a machine readable and recognizable graphic image and then there yelling at i'm sorry is that barrier a little bit let me let me pick up let me pick up the receiver i'm sorry i'm using a headset your honor is that better much better thank you or they're ok i'm sorry column eight line thirty one is where the discussion begins and this is the discussion of the coded component and as you can see the coded opponent component is said to comprise a machine readable and recognizable graphic image and then therefore examples of the machine readable graphic while there are more than four examples but there  examples that i want to focus on there is a string of numbers a string of characters a color code and an arrangement of colors now your honour's obviously all of those items are human readable as well as machine readable numbers characters and colors can be read by both a machine and a human so when one of those graphic images is employed in the method or the system a machine or human could perform all of the organizational steps that are cited in the kleins and this is particularly true and this is where i want to take the court next with respect to all of the method kline's or those claims do not require a computer to perform the method steps there is no machine imagery actually required by those klein's and i'd like to take the court through the groups of claims here there are three there are three groups of claims in the uppose i were to say at least some of the probably are tied to a computer system do you want me to really want me to be parsing these claims and say ok well the ones that are clearly tied to a computer honor if the claims are read as timing as being tied to a data processing system which i believe is incorrect and i'll take you through that in a moment but if they are then the the data processing system does nothing more than speed up a manual human activity of organizing photos just as was stated earlier this is simply a patent and i think as you stated judge moore this is simply a patent where the abstract idea is organizing photos using a divider either at the beginning of the set of photos or the end of a set of photos and that is something that has been done for years and years by a human and all this process does is speed up in it and it says this in the specification the process is meant to speed up to five to speed up the process and allow the photographer to take more pictures and not waste his or her time with having to keep track of those pictures in other words the photographers time is freed up it has nothing to do with a technological solution to a technological problem so obviously even if there is a machine readable component and again the machine readable component does not mean that it cannot be human readable so this is really a process that's been practiced for years and years and years and the only part that may not have been practiced is the fact that it's now done by computer instead of by human now looking at the group supplying claims however jaan or if you look at the st group of claims one through eight dollars twenty cents there are three action steps set forth photographs are taken with a camera some of the photographs have coded coded component in them some of them don't the nd step the section nd action step is sending the taken photographs to a data processing system and the rd step is then associated uncoated photographs with a coded photograph but contrary to what z would had this court believe nothing in these claims requires that i that a processing system ever actually use that coded component to do anything there's not a word in the set of climbs about using the coded component at all if you look carefully at the klein language and claim one the associated step merely requires that uncoded photographs be associated with the machine readable component of a coded photograph the clients do not require that a machine such as a computer or a data processing system do that associate and these clients the associated step is merely the organizing of human activity which can be performed by humans without the use of any machine and it kills all the claims says where in the data processing system is configured to process the photographs and associating the one or more nd photographs is a machine readable element are you saying the and breaks it up it's no longer the data processing system doing is associated your honor if well i don't know which one it is i believe it and does break it up and go back to a separate method step but regardless just because a device is configured and a method climb to do something does not mean that the step actually is performed they have to draft their claims correctly either it's a method step or it's a it's a machine it's a means plus function which is president client seventeen through nineteen you can't have it both ways it either has to be a structural limitation in other words something is configured to do something or it has to be that an action is taken and again it's unclear here which way it is but regardless of which way it turns out to be this claim still is not set forth patent eligible subject matter because if it's if the and brights it an association can be done by a human instead of a data processing system then the data processing system has no action doesn't take any action in the set of climbs that start with method climb one the only thing of the day to profit there are some body men in the specification which indicates that this sorting and associating is being done by a human and not being done by a computer or a data processing system is there something in the spec that supports your idea that these claims are broad enough to include human processing and there's nothing specific in the specification or on an obviously there wouldn't be because if they had set forth in the specification then this client these claims clearly would not be patent eligible but that's not what's necessary to be done to e preamble of all of these claims are a method to improve automation but the photography process and then the claims themselves talk about machine readable elements or data processing systems i mean i have to be odd if they think this is pretty much your weakest argument i'm genuinely surprised that this is where you begin because to me i don't think it's a particularly strong argument to say that claim one can be performed by a human when it has automation machine readable elements and data processing system and where you want to break the a hand in a where in clause which makes no sense to me so not sure what the associating is linked to if it's not linked to the data processing system so i mean you're welcome to use your time however you wish if you want to divide the claims up or whatever but i don't know i'm i have to be honest i'm not persuaded that claim one for example isn't directed to a computerized computer implemented claim and that we are talking about machine readable code components and we are talking about sending over the photographs from a camera to a computer and then the computer because of the coded component the computer knows how to associate all the various photographs and the different groups and classification yawner thank you yes i will so so assuming it is a computer based invention then the question becomes whether or not there is any technological advance any technological solution to a technological problem and whether the use of a computer adds to the invention provides the inventive concept your honor with respect to the improvement to automation that may be stated in the kleins but if you look at the specification and read the specification this is a patent this is not an invention about improving an already known automated process it is simply about making a human activity performed by a computer i understand the preambles to all the clients say improvement automation but that's not what the specifications say that kills i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding the claims are part of the speci so you're wrong when you say it's not what the specifications understand i apologize your honor you're right they are part of the specification but if you go back and look at the specification it's clear that the specification says that the invention is a process of automating image management if you look at column one line fourteen through fifteen and lines two thousand three hundred and twenty one the problem that's being addressed by the invention is a managing images and says that these manual processes do not support automation then further in column one lines three thousand three hundred and thirty six dollars the specification says that the invention provides processes to automate the photography business your honour's this is not a patent about improving an already known process of automation and if they develop some computer software or some hardware that actually improved an automation process then that might be patent eligible but here your honor all that they are doing is taking a human process the human process of organizing photographs using a divider using a divider picture using it using a picture with somebody holding up two or three things or or a business card or in the example we gave in our brief  grade school example of class photographs where the where the st picture taken is of the entire class and it says mrs smith rd grade class and then all the photos after that are photographs with individuals in mrs smith's rd grade class that's what this is this is a patent about about computerizing automating a already known human organizing activity and that's what this court and the supreme court have said is is a patent an eligible idea any time you merely use a computer to speed up and automate it's not a  thank you your honor counsel very much quick is keen to say that organizing photos isn't already known activity but there's no evidence that the for this disclosure anyone ever organized photos using the systems and methods that were disclosed and cling to or organizing photos even organizing photos with dividers might be abstract but we're not claiming anything really that broad and even if there were a manual analogue that wouldn't make the claims abstract or take it out of the realm of patentable subject matter if you look at data engine technologies the spreadsheet tab interface clearly refers back to tabs that were used to use the pen to flex folders filing systems but you apply it in a new manner in a new context using new technology and it's certainly within the realm of patentable subject matter so yes there were previous approaches there's parallel data systems people for starters solve their image management problems manually by using a picture counter or separate memory cards storage or film or folders restart and those wor there was st new that was without any claim that the invention reflected an invented solution to any problem and it failed to provide any technical details its claims were in purely functional terms elements of the disclosed technology they replace these traditional photographic sorting work at a photo shoot and provide the advantages structure using photographic film or digital presses themselves that hadn't been done before and you know when i talk about all subsequent photographs with then be grouped with this absolutely not there's facial recognition is not there's no coded component in facial recognition there's no machine readable element within a coded component in fashion recognition in fact that was one of the component is that different from a barcode barcode is well must be coded something into your face according to the meaning of the specification of the five or six in the past or the description that you would point to and if they were to do that leads me to this conclusion that these are very broad claims your honor the embedding is performed by photographing a code a component that gets imbedded from wherever it is originally displayed on a card on a p d f on a device attached to the camera and get into the digital photographic image but as i thought that i had answered that question for you better get the taking of the photo and the specification refers to invited a couple times ok counsel and lest anyone has any further questions i think we have your argument under in this case colleagues any further questions you know ok